Intervening in Syria is in our national interest

I've blogged earlier about how the Commons vote against intervening in Syria was accidental and blamed that largely on David Cameron (though Ed Miliband didn't exactly cover himself in glory).

For what it's worth, I think there should be some sort of punitive action taken against the Syrian regime and if the UK is not going to be part of it then I hope the Obama administration goes ahead regardless.

Lots of the debate around the merits of intervening have focused on the things like whether there is a detailed plan (and exit strategy) for any intervention and what impact intervention would have on the balance of power in the Syrian civil war. The other phrase trotted out regularly is a variation of "it's none of our business and we should not get involved".

As horrific as the suffering has been, caused by both chemical and conventional weapons, intervening in Syria is not really about Syria at all. It doesn't matter whether intervention overthrows the Assad regime or tips the balance of power in the Syrian civil war. The effect of intervention is that it maintains one of the norms of how states behave, namely the taboo against the use of chemical weapons.


Read more »