Syria - not quite like the run-up to Iraq... but not that different either

The contrast ceases when it comes to the evasive justifications for military intervention

Share

In Britain, the trauma of the calamitous war in Iraq has changed everything and nothing. The interplay between party leaders is incomparably different as they consider intervention in Syria. In the Commons today, once more recalled early to contemplate military action, leaders will be determined to show that they have learnt the lessons from recent history. Although often seeking to be Blair-like to the point of inauthenticity, David Cameron will deliberately avoid his predecessor’s evangelical tone, emphasising instead the narrow limits of the planned military involvement. Ed Miliband, who opposed the war in Iraq, will be cautious rather than gung-ho, in contrast to Blair’s opponent, Iain Duncan Smith, who was even keener to support President Bush than the then prime minister was.

Yet the imprecision of the language en route to war remains depressingly the same. The vaguely made assertions come down to the following claim: not acting is worse than acting. Yes, but acting in what form and to what end? What is the exact purpose of the proposed “strike”? What happens afterwards? Once more, Britain follows the US and, with big questions being posed, no clear answers are so far given.

But the domestic political calculations are transformed in the light of the past decade. Then, a wildly divided US administration responded irrationally to the September 11 attacks by seeking to invade Iraq. An insecure British prime minister calculated, in an unquestionably difficult situation, that he would be better placed supporting the US than opposing it. One domestic factor in his calculations was the indiscriminate support from Duncan Smith and the country’s most powerful newspapers. After Saddam was toppled Blair, famously hoped for a “Baghdad bounce” in the polls. He did not get one; and ever since, he has rationalised that, although he took boldly unpopular decisions, he hoped at the time – understandably – that they would prove, if not popular, then the least unpopular option.

Now, leaders are more aware that Britain has ceased to be a nation that instinctively supports wars. After the Falklands conflict, parts of the country appeared to admire Margaret Thatcher more for her being a war leader. In contrast, Cameron knows that he acts with most voters and some powerful newspapers against him. Even The Sun is wary. He will also know that there is no obvious moment of “victory” in this situation that might help him win a subsequent election. His case therefore deserves a hearing when he speaks in detail for the first time in the House of Commons today. With no obvious political benefits that might have swayed him, he must be advocating action because he is genuinely convinced that it is the best course.

The same applies to Nick Clegg, who has made a big move in offering his qualified support for Cameron’s plan. Perhaps the Liberal Democrat leader calculates that he has already lost the support of those voters who turned to his party because of its opposition to the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, this was the Lib Dems’ most distinctive stand in recent decades. If Clegg supports action in Syria, he must have some cause to do so, and he must also be convinced that the action has been clearly thought through. We cannot be certain that he has made the right judgement; he has proved gullible in his dealings with Cameron in the past. But it is not without significance that the leader of the Libl Dems sees some merit in intervention. There is nothing in it for him so he must believe it – although his predecessor, Sir Ming Campbell, has forensically and powerfully argued against action.

Meanwhile, the Labour leadership is predictably agonised, leaving itself the space to support or oppose. Even so, his qualified endorsement puts Miliband in a very different  place to that occupied by the Conservative front bench in the run-up to Iraq, when enthusiasm for military action was such that Duncan Smith made clear that he supported President Bush whether he went to the UN or not.

Blair – brought up in the 1980s, when Labour had been perceived as anti-American – was neurotically worried that Duncan Smith was close to leading Republicans and was determined not to give him the opportunity to be more pro-US than he was. In contrast, Miliband was openly against the invasion of Iraq. Now, he will be making a thousand calculations about where this whole issue will leave him as a potential prime minister. But in spite of the doubts about how Labour will vote tonight, that there has been any hesitation at all suggests Miliband recognises at least part of the case for intervention.

In opposition, Miliband faces even more dilemmas than Clegg does. The Tories, and the newspapers that support them, seek to portray the Labour leader as a vote-losing, 1980s-style lefty. Will opposing a strike provoked by last week’s horrors in Syria reinforce this image? Will qualified support seem more prime ministerial? Whatever the final outcome of the agonising, there will be none of the overtly hawkish proclamations from the Opposition that there were from IDS in advance of Iraq.

There is also another fundamental difference here. This drama is being played out, in the US and UK both, partly by figures who opposed Iraq. President Obama, the reluctant interventionist, takes the lead. The contrast with the expedient, simplistic evangelism of Blair and Bush is marked.

The contrast ceases, however, when it comes to the evasive justifications for military intervention and the all-too familiar unanswered questions. Post-Iraq, there may be more caution in British domestic politics. But still the “something must be done” tendency prevails, even if that “something” is ill-defined. Is the strike aimed solely at destroying Bashar al-Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons? What happens if and when Assad retaliates – do we strike again? Who are we supporting, given that the rebels include al-Qa’ida? What constitutes a successful military intervention? How long might it last? What happens if other countries in the region get involved?

The Government is characteristically hyperactive at the UN, but proposes a resolution that is as evasive as the one that was justifiably rejected by France and others weeks before the invasion of Iraq. The proposed text seeks authority for all “necessary” measures to “protect civilians from chemical weapons”. Once more, the questions are clearer than the answers. What constitutes “necessary” actions? The implication is clear that the military aim is limited to annihilating Assad’s chemical weaponry, but why is this the sole criterion for attack? What will the US, and therefore the UK, do if Assad uses other forms of slaughter – as he has done in the past and has indicated he will do again? Is murder with chemical weapons unacceptable but death by other means unworthy of the world’s attention?

Decisions about military intervention in the face of a murderous tyrant are always complex. In the UK they are complicated further because leaders face a secondary theme: do they dare oppose the US? But unless the answers to all the obvious questions are clear, then the dilemma resolves itself. While the risks of doing nothing are high, the risks of acting without knowing what will follow are higher still. In tone and in the publicly declared modesty of military ambition, British leaders have learnt some of the lessons from Iraq. But not, it seems, the most important one.

React Now

  • Get to the point
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Bookkeeper

£23000 - £28000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This fast growing boutique prac...

Recruitment Genius: Customer Service Executive

£18000 - £22000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an exciting opportunity...

Recruitment Genius: Retail Buyer / Ecommerce Buyer

£30000 - £35000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Working closely with the market...

Recruitment Genius: Sales Executive - CAD Software Solutions Sales

£20000 - £50000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A reputable company, famed for ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
 

Daily catch-up: religion, politics and roads named after dictators

John Rentoul
 

Letter from the Education Editor: This shocking abuse of teachers should be taken seriously

Richard Garner
War with Isis: Iraq declares victory in the battle for Tikrit - but militants make make ominous advances in neighbouring Syria's capital

War with Isis

Iraq declares victory in the battle for Tikrit - but militants make make ominous advances in neighbouring Syria
Scientists develop mechanical spring-loaded leg brace to improve walking

A spring in your step?

Scientists develop mechanical leg brace to help take a load off
Peter Ackroyd on Alfred Hitchcock: How London shaped the director's art and obsessions

Peter Ackroyd on Alfred Hitchcock

Ackroyd has devoted his literary career to chronicling the capital and its characters. He tells John Walsh why he chose the master of suspense as his latest subject
Ryan Reynolds interview: The actor is branching out with Nazi art-theft drama Woman in Gold

Ryan Reynolds branches out in Woman in Gold

For every box-office smash in Ryan Reynolds' Hollywood career, there's always been a misconceived let-down. It's time for a rethink and a reboot, the actor tells James Mottram
Why Robin Williams safeguarded himself against a morbid trend in advertising

Stars safeguard against morbid advertising

As film-makers and advertisers make increasing posthumous use of celebrities' images, some stars are finding new ways of ensuring that they rest in peace
The UK horticulture industry is facing a skills crisis - but Great Dixter aims to change all that

UK horticulture industry facing skills crisis

Great Dixter manor house in East Sussex is encouraging people to work in the industry by offering three scholarships a year to students, as well as generous placements
Hack Circus aims to turn the rule-abiding approach of TED talks on its head

Hack Circus: Technology, art and learning

Hack Circus aims to turn the rule-abiding approach of TED talks on its head. Rhodri Marsden meets mistress of ceremonies Leila Johnston
Sevenoaks is split over much-delayed decision on controversial grammar school annexe

Sevenoaks split over grammar school annexe

If Weald of Kent Grammar School is given the go-ahead for an annexe in leafy Sevenoaks, it will be the first selective state school to open in 50 years
10 best compact cameras

A look through the lens: 10 best compact cameras

If your smartphone won’t quite cut it, it’s time to invest in a new portable gadget
Paul Scholes column: Ross Barkley played well against Italy but he must build on that. His time to step up and seize that England No 10 shirt is now

Paul Scholes column

Ross Barkley played well against Italy but he must build on that. His time to step up and seize that England No 10 shirt is now
Why Michael Carrick is still proving an enigma for England

Why Carrick is still proving an enigma for England

Manchester United's talented midfielder has played international football for almost 14 years yet, frustratingly, has won only 32 caps, says Sam Wallace
Tracey Neville: The netball coach who is just as busy as her brothers, Gary and Phil

Tracey Neville is just as busy as her brothers, Gary and Phil

The former player on how she is finding time to coach both Manchester Thunder in the Superleague and England in this year's World Cup
General Election 2015: The masterminds behind the scenes

The masterminds behind the election

How do you get your party leader to embrace a message and then stick to it? By employing these people
Machine Gun America: The amusement park where teenagers go to shoot a huge range of automatic weapons

Machine Gun America

The amusement park where teenagers go to shoot a huge range of automatic weapons
The ethics of pet food: Why are we are so selective in how we show animals our love?

The ethics of pet food

Why are we are so selective in how we show animals our love?