From Iraq to Syria and Woolwich

When the first tanks rolled into Iraq during the last military adventure of the Bush family, there was talk about a new coalition between those who favoured military intervention for political reasons, and those who did so for humanitarian reasons. A new creed seemed to be born, based on a supposed obligation of Western governments to protect and safeguard civilian populations from evil dictators or irresponsible governments.

This new doctrine was always shot through with loopholes and exemptions however for those states that happened to be allies of the West. Saudi Arabia could merrily continue to disenfranchise half its population without fearing Western bombers. North Korea had bought itself an insurance policy through nuclear armament. So in the end, Western governments intervened where political expediency and moral indignation converged.

There was little principled thinking in this doctrine and eventually, as the Syrian civil war broke out, hypocrisy reached extraordinary heights when Obama and Cameron prepared for military strikes against the Syrian government.

How ever you look at it, the doctrine lacked consistency and its shoddy application in practice roused the suspicion that it was just another tool to justify Western intervention wherever it pleased. Seumas Milne wrote in The Guardian today that the inability to draw an association between Western military intervention in the Middle East and the repercussions in the Muslim communities in Britain is at best naive.

What is needed now is a serious re-appraisal of this doctrine and the re-application of principled policy making in foreign policy. Western governments do have obligations. Yet taking sides in a civil war is not one of them. This is where Robin Cook, long time ago, started the reform of British foreign policy and we have to pick up where he left it.

Under the shadow of Iraq

As the barristers in the trial of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale prepare for sentencing, the full story behind this gruesome killing is still emerging. There can be no doubt that this is a case that will shock all decent people living in Britain. My main reaction however is one of confusion, confusion mainly about how two people could have concluded that murdering an innocent person would bring justice to those killed in Iraq.

The guilt of both defendants was never in doubt, yet what is less clear is how we should deal with people who have become fanatic followers of a religion. In a way, religious fanaticism has been with us for centuries, and blinding, at times murderous, loyalty to Christianity, Judaism or Islam has continuously challenged our belief in humanity. Yet, it seems to me that this is not just a question of religion.

There remains the nagging thought in the back of my head that the radicalisation of Adebolajo may not have happened without the disastrous adventure of Iraq which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And it is not just that. When the Iraq war devastated lives, many didn't act and felt powerless. In a sense, Adebolajo was determined not to remain powerless, but ultimately only became a pawn in a larger game.

During the trial and in his police interviews, Adebowale instinctively put his finger on the nub of the problem when he tried to claim for himself the status of a combatant, a fighter for justice. If you wear a uniform and follow the misguided orders of deluded politicians, you are a hero. If you do not wear a uniform, any retaliation for the suffering we have caused in other countries is murder, plain and simple. As long as the balance of recognition for a just cause is so heavily weighted in favour of 'legitimate force', some may try to take justice into their own hands whilst creating only more sorrow and pain.

Why the West is wrong to support the Syrian rebels

The Syrian civil war has reached its nadir with rebel groups using sarin against fighters of the Syrian army. Whilst Assad's regime is also nothing short of cruel and inhumane treatment of the civilian population, given the horrendous level of brutality meted out by the rebel fighters, it is time for the West to disengage from this conflict.

The latest incidence of a Syrian rebel fighter committing gratuitous violence to a body of a Syrian soldier is just one in a long list reflecting the Islamist radicalisation of the rebel forces with strong sectarian undertones. It seems to me that Russia has been right all along to insist that arming the rebel forces is tantamount to arming the most extremist wing of Islamism. Anybody who hopes that the sectarian hatred which has become second nature to the rebel forces bodes well for a liberated Syria is mistaken.

We should remember that Syria can never be Iraq, not least because no Western country, including the US, would ever want to commit ground troops to police a post-Assad Syria. That leaves one brutalised faction of Syria against another in the current scenario. It is time Western powers pull back from the brink and cease their support for the Islamist extremist rebel forces.

What Libya tells us about interventionism

As the first pictures of Colonel Gaddafi's corpse flashed across the world media, the mood in Libya was one of joy, while in the West it was mainly relief. Undoubtedly a debate will now take place on the rights and wrongs of Britain and France's participation in the uprising in Libya and their active support through massive airpower. 

The feuilletons of newspapers in the years to come may, however, focus on a completely different narrative that is nevertheless, I feel, the more important one. That narrative is about the resuscitation of Western interventionism in the fight for freedom across the world. 

George Bush and Tony Blair's ill-fated war in Iraq seemed to have buried any opportunity to develop a viable interventionist strategy where un-democratic regimes took up arms against their own people and engaged in large scale killings. However, it seems that a new avenue for interventionism has taken shape, designed and defended in the form of a supportive tactic to supplement indigenous rebellions against dictators. 

Slowly, but steadily, international interventionism is about to recover and Libya may just have played a critical role in laying the ghost of Iraq to rest. The developments around Syria will either confirm the contours of this more 'muscular interventionism' or demonstrate its inherent limitations.