Bombing Syria

I have no idea which option out of inaction, or bombing ISIS in Syria will prove to be the lesser of two evils. But be honest, do you know? Or are you just standing with your political tribe? Supporting or opposing anything on the basis of taking the opposite position to those people over there you don’t like is not a stance of moral courage.

This entry was posted in asides, Religion and Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Bombing Syria

  1. Considering that Labour pushed us into the Iraq war and are now saying “don’t bomb,” and the Liberal Democrats opposed the Iraq war and are now saying “bomb,” and, bewilderingly, UKIP are saying “don’t bomb the Muslims,” I’m not really clear on what “standing with your own tribe” means these days.

  2. Colum Paget says:

    I think I know. I direct you to John Mershimer’s excellent “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” where he makes a good case that bombing alone has never had any measurable impact in the history of warfare. Without a major commitment of ‘boots on the ground’ to take and hold ISIS territory, and without a plan to restructure the region and offer a better future for its people, bombing will only make things worse. We’ll bomb, killing a few more innocent people, radicalizing others, damanging what little infrastructure Syria has left, getting some ISIS targets in the process who will be swiftly replaced, and then ISIS will likely attack back. What’s been gained?

    Without an extensive (and likely costly) full-spectrum plan to return the region to stability, bombing is just gesture politics. Bombing as part of a real plan of action, I would support, but first *we’d all love to see the plan*

  3. Colum Paget says:

    In other news: have you really quit twitter?


  4. Tim Hall says:

    Just taking a break. Will be back.