"War"
is defined as a long standing armed conflict between two or more groups over
resources, land, cultural differences, or other matters of contention. It is
usually instigated following a public declaration of war, but undeclared wars
are quite common in the form of surprise attacks. War is considered different
from murder or genocide, because of the organisation of the participants. The
interesting thing, however, is that warfare is one of the few global/universal
concepts – almost every culture in recorded history has had some concept of
warfare, and has risen or fallen due to war.
“Britain
risks sleep-walking into a full-scale war by launching missile strikes against
Syria,” former top brass warned last night.
Retired
commanders cautioned that an ill-thought-out attack against President Assad’s
brutal regime could provoke revenge attacks at home and abroad.
Lord
West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord, General Lord Dannatt, a former head
of the British Army, and Major General , a commander during the first Gulf War,
all warned of the “unintended consequences” of a military campaign.
It
also emerged that Israel was taking precautions against a possible Syrian
attack, including bolstering missile defences and handing out gas masks to
civilians. A coalition spearheaded by the US, Britain and France is preparing
to punish Assad for allegedly gassing to death hundreds of innocent people last
week.
Defence
chiefs favour a strike against important military installations, including
airbases, arms dumps and communications hubs, using long-range cruise missiles
fired from warships or submarines amassing in the Mediterranean.
The
hope is that the attacks will deter Assad from using chemical weapons and make
it more difficult for him to launch them in future.
But
military grandees fear David Cameron and his allies might unwittingly escalate
Syria’s civil war into a regional conflict in the Middle East, or even a proxy
Cold War with Damascus’s key ally, Russia.
Assad
might also be goaded into retaliating against UK bases in Cyprus. And a missile
strike might encourage extremists to bring bloodshed to the streets of Britain.
Lord
West, a former head of the Navy, said ministers should try to get Russia and
China to agree to condemn Assad’s chemical attacks in a UN Security Council
Resolution.
“We
are moving inextricably towards military action. A strike might be a rap across
the knuckles for Assad but will that be enough to make him stop? I have have
very severe doubts. If he is deranged enough to have used chemical weapons on
his own people, which is a loathsome thing, what is he likely to do if we
strike against key targets in Syria? He might do something as mad as fire
ballistic missiles against the air base in Cyprus. That then becomes an attack
on a Nato ally, an attack on British sovereign territory, and that means war,
doesn’t it?”
Lord
West added: “Politicians think they can
control these things, but once you embark on military operations you cannot
predict what will happen. We need to be very clear on our game plan – what, at
the end, is going to make our nation and the globe more secure, and ideally
help the Syrian people.”
Of
any military strike’s consequences, Lord West said: “Iran has said if anything
happened it would unleash terrorist attacks, so you might have some reprisals
here.”
Lord
Dannatt questioned the legality and purpose of the proposed military strike,
describing the plans as inappropriate.
He
said Assad’s probable use of chemical weapons, however wrong, did “not
constitute an open invitation for the international community to impose
themselves on the internal affairs of another country.”
The
general, who headed the British intervention in Kosovo in 1999, said an
intervention could result in “fuelling the conflict and making it worse.”
General
Cordingley, who led the Desert Rats during the liberation of Kuwait, said: “There
is a danger Assad will retaliate against us. More widely, yet again people in
the Arab world will say the West is dropping more bombs on the Middle East. It
might not heighten the threat of terrorism at home, but it certainly will do
nothing to reduce it.”
Syrian
prime minister Wael al-Halqi responded to the threat of military intervention
by warning his war-torn country would become a “graveyard of the invaders.”
And
a Syrian army officer has claimed Assad could use kamikaze pilots to combat
Western forces.
The
unnamed officer told a British newspaper that, in the event of an attack by the
US and Britain, the Syrian army had eight-thousand “suicide martyrs” who would
give their lives to bring down warplanes.
“I
myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them
attacking Syria and its people,” he said.
Questions
and Answers
Would bombing Syria be lawful?
Britain
and the US insist it would be, but the truth is far from clear. It’s hard to
see how Syria’s reported chemical attacks against its own citizens present a
direct threat to either country.
What specific laws or UN conventions
might be used as justification?
The
UN Charter allows for military action on only two grounds – in self-defence, or
if action is approved by the UN Security Council. Neither applies here. Russia has made clear its intention to veto
any proposed Security Council resolution authorising action – as has China.
Can a military strike be legal without
a UN resolution?
Unclear.
In 1999, the Nato bombing campaign against Serbia was launched without one,
with Tony Blair and President Clinton seeking to justify it on humanitarian
grounds to protect Kosovan civilians.
The
intervention was widely welcomed, but its legality was questionable. A similar
humanitarian argument is being used to defend intervention in Syria.
If
President Assad is proved to have launched poison gas attacks on his own
people, he will be in breach of the Geneva Gas Protocol, an international
agreement dating back to 1925 – to which Syria is a signatory – banning the use
of chemical weapons.
But
breaching the protocol doesn’t provide a clear justification for military
action and it normally applies to international conflicts, rather than civil
wars.
Does the UN have a ‘Responsibility to
Protect’ the Syrians?
In
2005, following the hideous atrocities committed in Rwanda and Bosnia in the
1990s, the UN brought forward an initiative called the “Responsibility to
Protect.”
It
was designed to protect the innocent from genocide, war crimes and ethnic
cleansing and places a duty on individual states to prevent such horrors within
their borders, and an obligation to intervene if they see it elsewhere.
But
former UN assistant Secretary-General, Francesc Vendrell, says the doctrine
does not necessarily justify the use of force.
All
diplomatic efforts must have been tried first, and even then military
intervention requires the backing of the Security Council – taking David
Cameron and President Obama back to square one.
Does the PM need Parliamentary backing
for a bombing campaign?
Technically,
no. He retains the power, under Royal Prerogative, to use military force
without Parliamentary approval.
However,
all recent major military interventions – including the wars in Iraq and
Libya – have been preceded by a Commons
vote. The Government has made clear it will “respect the outcome’ of tonight’s.”
Weight
for me soon. Paul
Paul Lambis is the author of “Where is
Home?” – A journey of hilarious contrasts.
For more information on Paul Lambis,
and to order his book online,
visit www.paul-lambis.com
