We hear a great deal about how many deaths have stemmed
from the Iraq War in 2003. This is often numbered in hundreds of thousands.
Some people claim as many as a million, although of course the vast majority of
the tragic fatalities have nothing directly to do with the actions of American,
British or allied troops. In making the calculations, opponents of the war count
every death they believe stems from that
war and the destabilisation it ultimately caused.
This is the logic that allows the more hysterical sections
of the left to claim that Tony Blair is a ‘war criminal’ or ‘mass murderer’.
Quite when deaths in the region will no longer be attributed to the Iraq War is
anyone’s guess. The relationship seems to be pretty indefinite, which is
clearly illogical and completely ahistorical. A little like saying that
everything happening in America now is the result of 9/11 or blaming the
Luftwaffe for deaths in London in the early 1960s.
So there are many reasons to dispute the whole narrative.
But let us for a moment accept that hundreds of thousands of deaths did result from British and American
military intervention to remove the murderous Saddam. Should we conclude that
intervention in such circumstances must always be avoided?
Here’s a startling fact, which has seen relatively little
coverage. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights – a British-based war
monitoring organisation - estimates that 511,000 people have now died as a
result of the conflict masterminded by Assad and his sponsors in Moscow and
Tehran.
That’s right. Over half a million people have died in
Syria. And there’s an overwhelmingly powerful case for saying that many have
perished because of our failure to
intervene.
Remember the threat to Assad from Obama after the use of
chemical weapons back in 2013? The former US President looked to the UK to
support air strikes, but the House of Commons (after an apparent volte face by
then Labour Leader Ed Miliband) voted 285-272 to oppose action. When Obama
could no longer rely on his closest military ally, he wobbled and cooked up a
shameful deal with Putin which allowed Assad to remain unchallenged.
The rest, as we know, is tragic history. And if I wanted to
play the same games as the left-wingers who denounce Blair, I’d say that the
deaths that followed in Syria can be traced back to that lack of willingness to
stand up to tyranny. IS grew in strength because more moderate anti-Assad
forces felt weakened and abandoned. In the turmoil that followed, we have seen
the intervention of Iran, Turkey, Russia and Israel in a conflict that has
become messier than pretty much any since World War II.
It’s essential for the left to realise that inaction can
prove just as deadly as intervention. All decisions to use military force come
with huge responsibilities and consequences. But so do all decisions to sit on
the sidelines. As Eastern Ghouta is devastated by Assad and Afrin is destroyed
by the Turks as they wage war against the Kurds, is the rest of the world absolved of blame for the carnage? History will, I suspect, prove a harsh judge.
Comments
Post a Comment