Syria

Thursday

Shiraz Maher

Hitting Assad – and hitting him hard – is urgent and necessary

There has been lots of debate about our impending intervention in the Syrian conflict today. Many of my Coffee House colleagues have counselled against intervention, arguing against Danny Finkelstein’s piece in the Times yesterday. I’m in broad agreement with the general sentiment of the piece, but some of its subtexts need greater illumination. Leave aside Finkelstein’s argument about omission bias. For a moment, forget the ‘complexities’ of the conflict, imbibed as it is with sectarian differences, confessional rivalries, and great power posturing. Even the discussion of what should happen next in Syria can wait for another day. The use of chemical weapons against civilians is an affront to the very

The Spectator

Audio coverage of the Syria debate in House of Commons

Welcome to Coffee House’s rolling coverage of the Syria debate in the House of Commons this afternoon. We will be detailing the best speeches in favour of and against the motion below, with full quotes and audio clips. Jump to speeches: David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Jack Straw, Liam Fox, David Davis, Andrew Mitchell, Ming Campbell, Justin Welby Friday 9:10:  Chancellor George Osborne was on the Today programme, discussing the government’s defeat. Fraser thinks his logic was rather tendentious: listen to ‘George Osborne on Today’ on Audioboo 23:00: Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond was interviewed on Newsnight just as the news came through the government’s motion had been defeated: listen to ‘Defence Secretary Philip

Isabel Hardman

Number 10: Ed Miliband wants to divide the nation on Syria

Even if you were wavering over whether Ed Miliband’s decision yesterday to reject the government’s motion on Syria (before it was published) was a political stunt, it’s a little more difficult to see why the Labour leader plans to continue to oppose the rewritten motion when it comes to a vote in the Commons this evening. You can read the full motion here. Number 10 is in no doubt that Labour now opposes this motion on political grounds rather than out of principle. A senior source says: ‘That just proves they are playing politics with this incredibly serious matter. They want to divide the nation on this matter and divide

Sebastian Payne

The View from 22: Peter Hitchens and Alan Mendoza debate British intervention in Syria

Is David Cameron pushing Britain into a war without a purpose? On the latest View from 22 podcast, the Mail on Sunday’s Peter Hitchens vigorously debates Alan Mendoza from the Henry Jackson Society on this week’s developments in Syria. Why should Britain increase its involvement in Syria? What benefit would it bring to our nation? And how has the Prime Minister evolved from a leader who once said ‘democracy should not be dropped from 40,000ft’ into a foreign policy hawk? Fraser Nelson and Isabel Hardman also discuss how this week’s parliamentary business on Syria will play out between the coalition partners. Are the Tories and Lib Dems united? We also

Douglas Murray

David Cameron’s wars: How the PM learned to love precision bombing

What is the one consolation for an MP who has beaten all their colleagues to the top job? It can hardly be the luxury of having your life, circle and income open to alternate snorts of envy and derision. Nor can it be the quagmire into which nearly all attempts to solve the nation’s domestic problems now fall.  Only one thing allows prime ministers of a country such as Britain to feel they have power. That is exercising it. And nothing exercises power more than deciding which wars to fight. In opposition, David Cameron did not much like the idea of war, and derided his colleagues for their admiration of

Wednesday

Isabel Hardman

Cameron's retreat on Syria vote: why it happened and what it means

To be fair to David Cameron, he’s not the only leader who’s performed a volte-face in the past 24 hours. If you’d listened to Ed Miliband yesterday afternoon, you might have been forgiven for thinking that he was quite likely to support the government’s motion on Syria, so long as it was and ‘legal’ and had specific and limited aims. listen to ‘Ed Miliband: Labour would consider supporting limited action in Syria’ on Audioboo

The Spectator

The Government's motion on Syria - and Labour's amendment

Government motion: This House: Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians; Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law; Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on savings lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons; Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to

Isabel Hardman

Labour to vote against government motion on Syria

Ed Miliband has now confirmed that he will table a Labour amendment to the government’s motion on Syria, demanding that the Prime Minister return to the Commons once the UN weapons inspectors have reported, thereby delaying the main vote on intervention. And Labour will vote against the government’s motion. Whether you think this is a wise move from Miliband depends partly on whether you think he’s as worried as some in the Conservative party are about the case for intervention, the lack of evidence and the legality of it, or whether you suspect that this is more about the problems supporting intervention outright would have caused a party still haunted

Adam Afriyie

Premature engagement in Syria is wrong for Britain

The events in Syria are distressing. The pictures and reports of an alleged chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians with hundreds of dead and thousands suffering horrifying symptoms is alarming. The news footage is deeply disturbing and upsetting. It is natural to want to punish whoever did this – to demonstrate that the civilised world will not stand idly by while people are gassed indiscriminately. But because we are a civilised nation we need to stay calm, step back and establish what really happened. We need a thorough investigation and we need the facts. Not the ones that fit what we want to think or those that suit an agenda.

Alex Massie

Syria is not Iraq (but at least the Iraq War had a clear objective)

A decade ago, I was sure that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. I persisted in that belief for a long time too, well beyond the point at which most supporters of the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power had recanted their past enthusiasm. The link between 9/11 and Iraq was quite apparent. Not because (despite what some mistaken people insisted) Saddam had any involvement in the atrocity but because removing tyrants and dictators seemed the best way of spreading the pacifying forces of commerce and democracy that might, in time, render Islamist extremism and terrorism obsolete. Why Iraq? Because it was there and

Mary Wakefield

An improvement on Lord Finkelstein's Syria analogy

As Freddy Gray points out, Danny Finkelstein has wheeled out a very odd argument in the Times today (£), in favour of intervention in Syria. We are all subject to ‘omission bias’ says Finkelstein, and uses an example from Scorecasting, a sports psychology book — of the sort most bought by men who can’t catch. Here’s the example: ‘Lets say there’s a disease that kills ten in every 10,000 kids, and a vaccine that protects agains the disease, but kills five in every 10,000. Would you let the doctor inoculate your kid?’ asks Finkelstein. The fact that most people say no, is an example of how prone to ‘Omission Bias’ we are. We’d

Nick De Bois

Syria: why warnings about good men doing nothing won't swing the debate

Danny Finkelstein writes  in his column for The Times today that just because we are unsure about what the outcome and effect of any intervention in Syria may be, that is not reason enough to do nothing. Further to support his case for military intervention he suggested that those that argue against military intervention fail to grasp that the consequences of that approach are impossible to anticipate as well. In other words, quite possibly damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Well I certainly agree with the latter point. I fully accept that I am no expert on the Syrian crisis, and the complexities of the region. I

Freddy Gray

Should we really bomb Syria 'for show'?

‘Syria won’t go away if we just shut our eyes,’ says the newly ennobled Daniel Finklestein, in today’s Times (£). What he proposes instead is that we support the Prime Minister, then close our eyes and intervene. It is better to do something than nothing. Who knows what will happen? But at least we will have shown the bad guys that we mean business. (Don’t let’s talk about the other bad guys, for now, those heart-eaters on YouTube who will benefit if the West moves against Assad. That will only complicate matters.) What nonsense these liberal interventionists spout. Finklestein cites the Korean War as a reason to attack in Syria.

Isabel Hardman

How will the Tory whips handle tomorrow's Syria vote?

The government has yet to compose the motion that MPs will debate and vote on in tomorrow’s Commons debate on Syria. And while some MPs are making clear that they are very nervous about the prospect of intervention, many others are yet to make up their minds. This means that as they return to Parliament today and tomorrow ahead of the debate (which starts at 2.30pm), they are sitting targets for the whips. There are some MPs like John Baron who are clear that they do not support intervention. Then there are a number of independently-minded MPs like Douglas Carswell and Sarah Wollaston who aren’t worth much of a whip’s

The Spectator

David Cameron and Barack Obama's latest call on Syria - a readout

David Cameron and Barack Obama spoke last night again about the situation in Syria. Below is a readout of the call from Number 10: ‘The PM spoke to President Obama last night to further discuss the serious response to last week’s chemical weapons attack in Syria. ‘Ahead of today’s NSC, it was an opportunity for the PM to hear the latest US thinking on the issue and to set out the options being considered by the Government. ‘Both leaders agreed that all the information available confirmed a chemical weapons attack had taken place, noting that even the Iranian President and Syrian regime had conceded this. And they both agreed they

Tuesday

Isabel Hardman

Audio: Cameron, Clegg and Miliband on Syria and what their statements tell us

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband this afternoon gave statements on Britain’s response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. There were important similarities between the statements which are worth examining. Here is what we learned: 1. The action must be legal. Miliband told the cameras after the meeting that ‘when I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him that we the Labour party would consider supporting international action, but only on the basis that it was legal’. Meanwhile Clegg and Cameron both insisted that the measures being considered were legal. Clegg said: ‘Any steps we will take will have to be legal. This Government,

Sebastian Payne

Michael Gove's not-so-gentle reminder to Ed Miliband

Surprise, surprise — Michael Gove doesn’t think much of Ed Miliband. To keep up the momentum on Labour’s summer of discontent, the Education Secretary gave a speech at Conservative HQ this morning, focusing on Labour’s troubled relationship with the trade unions — again. He was clearly enjoying himself as he compared the Labour leader’s present position to two of the party’s moderate forces: ‘And if anyone thinks I am asking too much I ask simply this – what would Blair do? Indeed, what would even Kinnock have done? ‘The sad truth is that – charming, intelligent, eloquent, thoughtful, generous and chivalrous as Ed Miliband may be – in this critical

Isabel Hardman

Breaking: Parliament will be recalled for a vote on Syria

David Cameron has just confirmed that Parliament will be recalled on Thursday for MPs to vote on a government motion regarding the response to the chemical attacks in Syria. In reality, it would have been very difficult for the government to do anything else. But the question now is whether the statement that is offered to MPs is enough firstly to convince wavering coalition MPs of the case for intervention (and the case for the specific intervention chosen) and secondly to convince the Labour party not to whip its MPs against the vote: something Douglas Alexander this morning warned could happen. listen to ‘Douglas Alexander on intervention in Syria’ on

Isabel Hardman

How will Cameron consult Parliament on Syria?

It would be a surprise if, when the Prime Minister and colleagues make their decision on consulting Parliament on intervening in Syria, they don’t settle for some form of debate. An early day motion by Graham Allen demanding a recall of Parliament has swiftly accrued signatures from MPs of all parties, including Douglas Carswell, Stewart Jackson, David Davies, Graham Stuart, Philip Davies, Martin Vickers, James Gray, and Adam Holloway. But the question is how Parliament will be consulted. A vote on action would still be dangerous. A statement from the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary followed by a debate would satisfy the calls from MPs like Andrew Bridgen to hear

Monday

Isabel Hardman

William Hague: We can act without UN security council unity

William Hague is keeping his options open on Syria: not just on what the response will be to last week’s chemical weapons attack, but on whether (and how) Parliament will be consulted on any intervention. What is clear is that there will be some form of response, regardless of whether the United Nations Security Council unites over what that response is. Hague said: ‘So, is it possible to act on chemical weapons, is it possible to respond to chemical weapons without complete unity on the UN Security Council? I would argue, yes it is. Otherwise, of course, it might be impossible to respond to such outrages, such crimes and I