This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2013/aug/28/syria-military-chemical-weapons

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Syria: Questions and Dilemmas for MPs Syria: Questions and Dilemmas for MPs
(21 days later)
Is moral outrage, however genuine, a sensible trigger for military strikes?Is moral outrage, however genuine, a sensible trigger for military strikes?
What is remarkable in this crisis, in part a conflict between principle and pragmatism, is the extreme caution expressed by former military commanders — and almost certainly in private by existing ones.What is remarkable in this crisis, in part a conflict between principle and pragmatism, is the extreme caution expressed by former military commanders — and almost certainly in private by existing ones.
Their fingers have been burnt by Iraq and Afghanistan.Their fingers have been burnt by Iraq and Afghanistan.
Alan West, former first sea lord and Labour security minister, warned on Wednesday of the dangers of military action. Politicians, he warned on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, cannot control military events.Alan West, former first sea lord and Labour security minister, warned on Wednesday of the dangers of military action. Politicians, he warned on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, cannot control military events.
(In a significant and intriguing aside, West said he regretted the way British troops were sent into Helmand in 2006 — he could not say so publicly at the time since he was in office).(In a significant and intriguing aside, West said he regretted the way British troops were sent into Helmand in 2006 — he could not say so publicly at the time since he was in office).
The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and his circle, should not get away with impunity, ministers say. But what would be the effect of military strikes?The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and his circle, should not get away with impunity, ministers say. But what would be the effect of military strikes?
The Liberal Democrat elder statesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, has warned of "unintended consequences" as well as unexplained objectives.The Liberal Democrat elder statesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, has warned of "unintended consequences" as well as unexplained objectives.
The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, spoke on Tuesday of "clear and achievable goals".The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, spoke on Tuesday of "clear and achievable goals".
But what would "a slap on the wrist" — West's phrase — achieve?But what would "a slap on the wrist" — West's phrase — achieve?
Good question.Good question.
And whatever the US might fire at Syrian military bases, Britain's contribution would essentially amount to a show of political support - in the shape of a handful or two Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a Trafalgar class submarine or long-range "stand off" missiles from a Tornado jet.And whatever the US might fire at Syrian military bases, Britain's contribution would essentially amount to a show of political support - in the shape of a handful or two Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a Trafalgar class submarine or long-range "stand off" missiles from a Tornado jet.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg insist it is not a question of "regime change".David Cameron and Nick Clegg insist it is not a question of "regime change".
Cameron said on Tuesday: "This is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war, or changing our stance in Syria, or going further into that conflict. It's nothing to do with that. It's about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn't stand idly by."Cameron said on Tuesday: "This is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war, or changing our stance in Syria, or going further into that conflict. It's nothing to do with that. It's about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong and the world shouldn't stand idly by."
The ghost of the Iraq invasion is never far away. At the time of writing, US officials were promising to release evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack. It has to be credible and convincing. We will see.The ghost of the Iraq invasion is never far away. At the time of writing, US officials were promising to release evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for last week's chemical weapons attack. It has to be credible and convincing. We will see.
Cameron's decision on Wednesday to try the UN route again is reminiscent of Tony Blair's attempts before the invasion of Iraq.Cameron's decision on Wednesday to try the UN route again is reminiscent of Tony Blair's attempts before the invasion of Iraq.
He seems confident that international law- an elastic concept at the best of times — will give him enough room for manoeuvre without a new UN security council resolution.He seems confident that international law- an elastic concept at the best of times — will give him enough room for manoeuvre without a new UN security council resolution.
Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security, Chatham House, says: "Syria may not be party to the global Chemical Weapons Convention but it is a member of the long-established 1925 Geneva Protocol against the use of chemical weapons in conflict; all countries that are party to these treaties – including Russia and China – have an obligation to enforce their provisions and act in the case of their breach.Patricia Lewis, Research Director, International Security, Chatham House, says: "Syria may not be party to the global Chemical Weapons Convention but it is a member of the long-established 1925 Geneva Protocol against the use of chemical weapons in conflict; all countries that are party to these treaties – including Russia and China – have an obligation to enforce their provisions and act in the case of their breach.
"Equally important is the prevention of further chemical attacks. If no effective – not necessarily military – action is taken, then there are likely to be more chemical attacks. The consequences of no action, military or non-military, would be to allow whoever committed the attack to go unpunished and give the signal that the supporters of the world-wide ban on chemical weapons do not care about the law and the meaning of the law. It also again means – twenty-five years after the Halabja atrocity – that the people who were gassed will not be protected and defended.""Equally important is the prevention of further chemical attacks. If no effective – not necessarily military – action is taken, then there are likely to be more chemical attacks. The consequences of no action, military or non-military, would be to allow whoever committed the attack to go unpunished and give the signal that the supporters of the world-wide ban on chemical weapons do not care about the law and the meaning of the law. It also again means – twenty-five years after the Halabja atrocity – that the people who were gassed will not be protected and defended."
(Footnote: The Scott arms-to-Iraq inquiry showed how the British government turned a blind eye to Halabja, so keen they were to continue selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. It even suggested that the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 was an attempt by Iran to weaken western support for Saddam).(Footnote: The Scott arms-to-Iraq inquiry showed how the British government turned a blind eye to Halabja, so keen they were to continue selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. It even suggested that the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 was an attempt by Iran to weaken western support for Saddam).
Dana Allin and Steven Simon of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, write: "Chemical weapons are truly frightening and their use is properly forbidden under international law, but they are not necessarily more destructive of life than high-power conventional explosives. If Syrian forces now conduct a comparable massacre with conventional weapons, there could be overwhelming pressure on the [US] administration and other allied governments not to shrug away crimes that were considered intolerable using different tools."Dana Allin and Steven Simon of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, write: "Chemical weapons are truly frightening and their use is properly forbidden under international law, but they are not necessarily more destructive of life than high-power conventional explosives. If Syrian forces now conduct a comparable massacre with conventional weapons, there could be overwhelming pressure on the [US] administration and other allied governments not to shrug away crimes that were considered intolerable using different tools."
As far as credibility is concerned, the west is in danger of going down a path where it cannot win.As far as credibility is concerned, the west is in danger of going down a path where it cannot win.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.