According to this perspective blocking military action will give succour to Assad and potentially emboldens those that would use Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) or commit crimes against humanity.
This seems to me to be a very partial reading of the outcome of last night’s vote. On twitter I have indicated that I think there are 4 points those arguing that a failure to authorise strikes on Syria are failing to acknowledge:
Unless otherwise noted, my work on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Please note that I require any verbatim quotes taken from my work to be placed within quotation marks and acknowledged in an academically acceptable manner.
Syria: Why those who think UK vote against action appeases Assad are wrong
Friday, August 30th, 2013Last night Defence Secretary Philip Hammond – fresh from seeing parliament refuse to grant the government a mandate to attack Syria – noted, with some frustration, that “Common sense must tell us that the Assad regime is going to be a little less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this decision in parliament“. This is a theme that has been repeated elsewhere
According to this perspective blocking military action will give succour to Assad and potentially emboldens those that would use Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) or commit crimes against humanity.
This seems to me to be a very partial reading of the outcome of last night’s vote. On twitter I have indicated that I think there are 4 points those arguing that a failure to authorise strikes on Syria are failing to acknowledge:
(more…)
Share this:
Tags: intervention, military action, Philip Hammond, Syria, UK Government
Posted in Comment | Comments Off on Syria: Why those who think UK vote against action appeases Assad are wrong