Syria: ‘Forget proof – let’s bomb’
There was a time when the British government at least felt it needed a dossier to take us to war.
So Iraq gave us the infamous “dodgy dossier” with all the nonsense from dragooned secret services through to a cut-and-paste job on a student thesis. Sprinkle in one or two equally dodgy Iraqi exiles to say what the government wanted to hear and you have the notorious “justification” to invade Iraq over weapons of mass destruction for something that did not exist.
Now we have Syria and something that does exist: chemical weapons. Seeing that, the UK foreign secretary clearly believes we can now go to war without any dossier at all – dodgy or sound.
The Damascus attack was President Assad. That’s that. Let us bomb.
And that agenda rolled quite well till late yesterday when MPs from all sides got off their holidays, on the case and decided that bombing another country without evidence is absurd.
And we still have no evidence. Some will have – surely – to be revealed to parliament today. But so far, nada.
Post-Iraq
Evidence is a reasonable, rational thing to ask for. Last night on Channel 4 News the shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander was simply asking for that, as a starting point.
That William Hague saw fit to blame without giving any – post Iraq – is truly extraordinary. It shows a kind of insouciance to the obvious reality that post-Iraq if the US or UK said the North Pole’s cold we’d want to see proof and reasonably so.
It’s not like Iraq lamented Mr Hague yesterday. Tell that to the people William. Tell that to parliament.
Proof obviously matters in law as the commander-in-chief of any bombing, President Obama made clear to CNN:
“…let’s just take the example of Syria If the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it…”
Pretty clear – you not only need evidence in law but you need to present it too.
Of course the circumstances may well point to government forces using chemical weapons but of course in this dirtiest of civil wars a case can be made for either side using such weapons.
Credible evidence
Circumstantial won’t do when incontrovertible is the litmus test demanded.
The UN team is there to decide what was used – not who used it. That should be calmly borne I mind when whatever they say will be seized upon by US and UK politicians attempting to get their publics to support action they very much do not support as things stand.
None of this is to detract from the obvious brutality of the Assad government. Nor the human organ-eating and head-chopping horrors of the al-Qaeda rebel elements.
It’s simply to suggest that the credibility of US and UK governments – post Iraq – is damaged. People should demand credible evidence.
When you hear William Hague blaming one side without putting up a shred of evidence – be sceptical.
When you hear US Secretary of State John Kerry telling people to look on YouTube as evidence – be more than skeptical.
Follow @alextomo on Twitter