I marched against the invasion of Iraq and spoke against the illegality of that invasion. I believe that Chilcot will vindicate that view. The situation we now face is completely different.
With huge parliamentary backing we have already taken part in a lawful armed intervention against Daesh in Iraq, it is absurd to argue that we cannot lawfully do the same in Syria in accordance with UN Resolution 2249 (2015) on Daesh.
The resolution describes Daesh as a “global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,” it says that the Security Council is determined to combat, by all means, this “unprecedented threat to international peace and security.” The resolution calls on member states to take all necessary measure on the territory under the control of Daesh in Syria and Iraq and to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks committed by Daesh and other terrorist groups. Member states are called upon to “eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant party of Iraq and Syria.”
International law has developed to meet the challenge posed by these terrorist bodies even though they are non-state actors. There are no good legal reasons to argue that what is happening already in Iraq should not also happen across the border in accordance with our Government’s commitments. Daesh do not recognise the frontier between the two countries in committing their barbarous acts
I fully respect the views of colleagues who doubt the wisdom of joining the United States, France and Russia to eradicate the safe havens of Daesh, though I disagree with them. I doubt whether the issue of legality will make a difference to the outcome of the debate but I am quite clear that what the Government proposes and what the UN Security Council authorises fully accords with international law.
I do not think it useful to refer to other situations like the invasion of Iraq, the intervention in Libya, the Vietnam War, or the Spanish Civil War. What matters is the unprecedented threat we now face from terrorism by Daesh all too often using British nationals as their agents.
The right of collective self-defence amply covers British military intervention and compliance with the UN charter. We do not face the same situation as we did in 2003. The international community are agreed. We must act.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
nigel hunter
Tom Reeve
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
23 Comments
I don’t mean to be rude, but
So we’re supposed to ignore all the failures all the parallels and concentrate on the “unparalleled” threat from ISIL even though the state they are attempting to create is not so very different from the one created by the Taliban we failed to get rid of and two or three years ago the terrorist attacks would have been attributed to Al Qaeda who we haven’t actually got rid of either!
To me there’s a large element wishful thinking born of desperation in the belief that if we concentrate on ISIL we are on the way to solving the ME and terrorism at home. By all means find ways of removing ISIL, but stop elevating them to something they are not. They are not a big threat to the west an they are only one of many extremist groups operating in Syria and Libya. They haven’t killed as many people as Boko Haram.
To be honest. I’m not certain the terrorist attack in Paris, or Boston or elsewhere are really centrally planned. I suspect they actually have more in common with high school/campus shootings and are only loosely linked to ISIL in that they proved the current focal point for a bunch of nasty people with stupid beliefs who want to go postal.
Anthony, We are already acting against Daesh – in Iraq. Why isn’t that enough, when your preference is to pile into an already overcrowded Syria, increasing the risk of another disaster like the Russian bomber shot down by the Turks and where US bombers are returning regularly with unused weapons because of a shortage of clear targets?
We all want to “take action” against ISIL/Da’esh. The question is, what kind of action is appropriate and what is not because it will not work and do more harm. No-one has much idea about the answer to the first so they opt for the easy way out with the second.
Tony Greaves
We are already acting in Iraq so the question is in two parts. Can we attack ISIS in Syria if it helps the Kurds in Iraq. Do we just attack in Syria anyway. I hope the answer is Yes and No respectively but do not trust the government. On the other hand the people in ISIS controlled areas need protecting if they do not fit the ISIS approved beliefs.
So, they have a mandate. Let’s see what they do with it. Their track record is not good.
You must be so proud of your MPs tonight.
…how far the Liberals have travelled from their values.
“We must act against Daesh”
I agree. I’m happy to provide the funding for your travel and weaponry. Send us a postcard.
” it is absurd to argue that we cannot lawfully do the same in Syria in accordance with UN Resolution 2249 (2015) on Daesh.”
What is absurd is to suggest that anyone sensible is suggesting that the issue is what we can or cannot do lawfully. The only valid question is whether this action has any serious and/or sensible basis.
@Clootie: I am indeed proud of them, as I am of Hillary Benn for his stunning speech. Liberal MPs stood up for liberal interventionism, as they so often have.
I watched NEWSNIGHT and those taking part had already abandoned any pretence that it was militarily correct..It was agreed, even by those who supported the action, that it was only a political gesture to show solidarity…..
Expats,
I watched Newsnight and it was a little more complicated than that. Again, I found myself agreeing with a prominent right-winger, in this case Max Hastings. To me parliament has just decided to endorse the Blare Doctrine of spin in place of facts, an incoherent muddle of emoting instead of clear objectives and no end game.
Clootie
Not if you know the history.
There are other extremist groups in the southern Philippines, southern Thailand, Xinjiang and Kashmir.These reflect long standing problems and conflict has been going on for years.
Al Qaeda is more of an ideology than an organization and no one can kill an idea.
The action voted on in Parliament is not strictly lawful but that lawfulness has become somewhat moot.
Anyhow never forget the Italian Airforce flew raids against Britain during the early part of WW2, and also as an American once said to me what you limeys do doesn’t really amount to much anymore (That American was a master of tact and cultural sensitivity)
Glenn
I wonder whether the recent shootings in California have a terrorist link.
Manfrang,
okay, I’m sort overstating the going postal idea, but what I mean is this. If you look at organisations like the IRA they were very structured, had clear targets and clear aims. Where as if you look at most of the attacks on in the West attributed to ISIL they’re actually about as structured and organised as Klebold and Harris. Reeally what I suspect is that rather being organised centrally they are the autonomous actions of people sympathetic to ISIL and the link is possibly more ideological than organisational, So rather than joining ISIL and then being given missions they plan the attack amongst themselves and they becomes ISIL attacks because that’s how the attackers self identify.
Glenn
Syed Farook was named as an attacker.Seems to fit the pattern you are talking about.
It’s happened. The bombs are falling. Get over it. We should now be concentrating on the next TWO steps. Steps One AND Two: Put together a truly international force under the United Nations umbrella, comprising USA, France, Germany, UK, Russia, Iran, China…. to sort out the mess militarily and AT THE SAME TIME build on the Vienna talks to produce a cast iron blueprint to create viable states in the Middle East based on historical and cultural/religious ties. It won’t be easy; but we need to grasp this opportunity while we can.
John Marriott “It happened . The bombs are falling. Get over it.” Sadly for the innocent people caught between ISIIS and our bombs it a little less straightforward that that. It days like this when I realise what a shadow of a party the LibDems become since it was led by Charles Kennedy.
http://www.snp.org/dont-bomb-syria
Dave,
‘War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing’ goes the song. But that’s where we are now. Whether it’s existential remains to be seen. Will there be collateral damage? You bet your life there will be. So, let’s make sure we get the job done and create a peace that will last. To paraphrase Churchill, this may not be the beginning of the end but it might be the end of the beginning!
This is a day when I uncharitably think what a friend of mine said. He quoted Kipling, in fact. ”If they ask you why we died, tell them because our fathers lied”.
I have literally nothing but contempt for people who vote to go to war because it might be good for polls here, or because those who vote for war don’t dare to oppose.
There’s literally no strategy here. Hell, there’s no tactics. There’s no analysis. No plan. Nothing. It is ”we’re going to bomb Syria a little bit with our six planes, and we’ll win the war for everyone.”
If British airmen are beheaded on Youtube now in a while, we know where the fault lies. What is the answer going to be then? Send in ground troops?
Glenn makes an important observation (3.57 am), that I think we would do well to understand better :
“Really what I suspect is that rather being organised centrally they are the autonomous actions of people sympathetic to ISIL and the link is possibly more ideological than organisational, So rather than joining ISIL and then being given missions they plan the attack amongst themselves and they becomes ISIL attacks because that’s how the attackers self identify.”
I too have pondered this aspect of ISIL structure, and I think it is a vital but poorly understood point.?
In our western military thinking, we have a hierarchy. We have a command and control structure with a ‘chain of command’ I believe ISIL, by their very nature, do not have that same hieratical structure. By the very nature of *Jihad*, the structure of ISIL is *cellular* not hierarchical. The concept of Jihad imposes on the individual a religious duty to destroy anything that does not conform to their brand of Islam. Understanding this crucial point is key to understanding the folly of bombing the ‘head of the snake’, in Syria.
The point is this :
1. ISIL terrorists in Paris and elsewhere, are NOT waiting for a GO command from ‘the head of the snake’, but instead are operating via their self imposed duty [Jihad], in an autonomous independent cellular fashion when they strike in Paris, Tunisia London etc
2. If ISIL is working in a cellular structure rather than hierarchical, then their method of functioning is closer to the operating system of the internet. If you understand the workings of the internet, its software backbone [HTTP], was purposely designed to work around the destruction of a node or cell and resume its core function.
3. In conclusion,..If *Jihad* is akin to HTTP, in that ISIL is operating at the individual level, in a self correcting cellular fashion, then there is no substantial controlling hierarchical ‘head of the snake’ to speak of, and bombing Raqqa will have little effect in stopping the independent ‘Jihadi’ nodes or cells across the world from continuing their terror strikes across the world?
Correction :
hieratical (line 12) should of course read,… hierarchical