Monday, 30 November 2015

The argument for intervening in Syria is strong – but not strong enough

The civil war in Syria is complex and devastating. The home of some of the world’s greatest ancient civilisations has been reduced to rubble, and among the ashes lie the corpses of more than 250,000 Syrian people. The biggest butcher in Syria has been Bashar al-Assad, though the Syrian government is just one of many actors bringing death and destruction to innocent Syrians. Against this backdrop it is not hard to understand why so many Syrians have been prepared to risk their lives to cross the Mediterranean sea for sanctuary in Europe, though it is impossible to imagine what they have been through.
Events in Paris have underlined the threat that Isis poses to our own safety and security at home. In the past six months, our security and intelligence services have prevented seven attacks on British soil, according to David Cameron. Meanwhile, the head of MI5 and the chair of the joint intelligence committee have confirmed that the UK is in the top tier of targets for their terrorist activity. Isis combatants, foreign and domestic, plan to attack us regardless of whether we extend airstrikes into Syria. The deadly and fanatical nature of this death cult requires a multi-faceted response to wipe out its military capability and erode its base of support.
With this in mind, I have maintained an open mind. I have listened very carefully to the case that the prime minister has made for military action, I have listened to colleagues in parliament, sought independent advice and expertise, and considered the 50 or so representations made by people from Ilford North, my constituency. The question for me is whether extending airstrikes into Syria is both in our national interest and in the interest of innocent civilians in Syria.

No comments: