Hilary Ben seem to have made a most persuasive speech for uk to join the bombing fest in Syria. (even the telegraph seems impressed by Hillary’s words, declaring him a “true” leader.)
A few thoughts re holes in the arguments he presented:
– Labour has always been happy to join wars for just causes. eg the spanish civil war. True. However that does not mean the acts in the 30’s were the best ones to defeat fascism. The contemporary equivalent might be to suggest people should volunteer to fight for Rojava against ISIS.
The UK official position during the Spanish civil war was neutrality! While its not my preference, I wonder why H Benn did noty mention that?
In spain fascism left huge scars that people still have to deal with. Fascism itself, was more defeated by time as it lingered till the 70’s.
However, if we take fascism as a regime of state authoritarianism which use its powers to crush any possible rivals and to promote state run and/or closely linked capitalist ventures – then fascistic oriented regimes are all around. From the usa, to russia and most tellingly imho, china.
I think that in china today, we have fascism in all but name, and Britain was happy to make business with no longer than a few weeks ago. Ben was rather shtum then – as most of labour party, mind.. no?
At any rate, fascism, be it spanish, italian, communist (as in communist russia) was ended mostly via citizens – not airstrikes nor war.
Wan Benn ignorant or flippant about these histories?
– Going for bombing will not prevent other, more civil, measures to be taken?
Not so. Once we bomb, we become part of the groups in the conflict, no longer able to link honestly among the various factions to help indigenous civil oriented solutions to emerge.
Indeed, once we become part of the brutalisation operation, we will get affected – the only question is how.
Also, already, british violence is being condemned by both asad’s and oposition’s perspectives.
– Going to bomb is something that will support “our friends” – be it france. usa, etc. Actually, what if we are as friends consider the french bombing moves to be wrong? Can it not be that france acts too quick in response to the bombing in paris?
– Bombing is an appropriate action to confront a clear and present danger? I hope this Clear and present danger would be defined sometime. Danger of some nobminds killing people in the uk? Danger of an invasion? Danger of constant violent acts? Danger of losing our democracy? Danger of immanent violence that bombing will clearly resolve?
– Isis has eroded the border between Syria and Iraq, we bomb Iraq – might as well do Syria. Isis has also eroded the border between UK and Syria in the sense of people going from here to fight over there For Isis. Indeed, these are the possibly kind of people who might bomb here in the name of that particular murderous organisation.
However, these people’s desires to operate for Isis is being fed, partially, by the confirmation Isis ideology receives with each and every bomb we drop.
– That bombing in Iraq has halted Isis. Well.. Not entirely true as Isis has continued both expansion and taking deeper hold of the territories it controls. The gains for Kurdish forces are in areas where Kurds – non entirely suni muslims communities – live.
Yes, the strikes coordinated with Kurdish forces on the ground did help them – but that is different from what is suggested in Syria. (..and most of the bombing in Iraq)
Are these all the points covered?
Any missing ones?
Oh.. Yes.. That bombing has to do with defending our values. Well.. I really do think its not a democratic value to inflict – or join – a brutalisation cycle. Once we join the bombing, I think our democracy, as well as our society stands to get brutalised – imagine it Has to live by force – just as any other group of people who take to arms in aggressive ways while telling themselves its defense.