British fighter jets have now started bombing so-called Islamic State targets in Syria despite thousands of people asking the government not to do so. Even the Labour Party is split on the issue, but Prime Minister David Cameron got the seal of approval nonetheless.
The debate on the issue in parliament was keenly watched by millions when Cameron called those against the bombing “terrorist sympathisers,” irking many Labour law-makers. But he evaded saying sorry by saying: “Look, we must move forward.”
It was a lesson in parliamentary democracy, how, with suspected bullying and whipping, Cameron not only got votes from the Conservatives but also from many Labour MPs.
Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, did not look at his leader Jeremy Corbyn after he declared his support for the strikes in Syria. Detailing why he was voting for the motion, he said there was no point waiting. Rather, it was important to see that Britain did not suffer like France.
Britain is now officially on an offensive war with IS in Syria.
“For 15 minutes, Benn was verbal shock and awe. He began by laying waste to the prime minister, berating him for not having the courage or decency to apologise for calling Jeremy Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser,” commented an analyst in the Guardian.
But it was due to Benn that Cameron’s plea to bomb IS in Syria was heard.
It was also an opportunity for Cameron to really embarrass Corbyn when the shadow foreign secretary declared he would vote for bombing Syria.
“Benn persuaded me fascism should be defeated,” commented Labour MP Stella Creasy.
With a huge vote in hand, RAF fighter forces started to hit their targets within hours. It was as if everything had already been decided and the rest was mere “parliamentary drama.” I call it so because the RAF was ready hours before the debate on Syria.
But questions remain as to whether we agree with Cameron or not.
Why not ensure that the supply of weapons -- of which many say Israel is the source -- and funds are cut instead of bombing, which puts the lives of innocent people at risk.
These questions may never be answered as Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, alleged a Turkish role in an oil purchase deal with IS. Istanbul, however, denied the allegations.
It does not take the wisest person to understand that keeping the pipeline for oil and weapons open and bombing the other side can never be the answer. It is a game that goes round and round.
Many British protestors questioned why, when there were so many huge budget cuts in the domestic sectors, including the NHS, Britain was heading for a spending spree with this mission in Syria.
People can only guess and watch the consequences of the bombings. They will only be convinced of the honesty of David Cameron’s commitment when the “evil” forces of IS, which hates Britain in all its spheres, is annihilated.
Otherwise, these unanswered questions will remain lingering in the minds of the people who want genuine peace and security.
The only acceptable statement is when Ben questioned whether Britain should be defensive or offensive in this issue. To me, offensive is better if success is guaranteed, otherwise it will bring in more danger for this island country.
Analyst Patrick Cockburn says of IS that it is a “ferocious elusive enemy that won’t be defeated from the air … ISIS’s tactics include guerilla and terrorist techniques never combined before.”