Guest Post by Michael Duggan
In the end, I decided to respond to the request from our Glorious Leader to let him have our views on the likely vote on action against Islamic State to take place in the House of Commons later this week - here's what I said;
"1. As you have already set out your stall publicly on the actions proposed by the Prime Minister to stop the heinous activities of Islamic State (IS) and, as far as I can see, have no intention of considering any change to your stance, why are you putting Labour Party members through this sham of a consultation? I suspect that this is simply a manoeuvre to pressurise those who fundamentally disagree with you in the PLP to toe your line!
2. I've actually read the full Statement compiled by the Prime Minister in response to the concerns of the Foreign Affairs Committee and find that he has set out a compelling and comprehensive case for his strategy of military, diplomatic, and humanitarian measures, working with our close allies and, potentially, Russia and other influential international players, to combat IS; it's not perfect, but neither is the world within which we live, and, in my view, it's as close to meeting the four conditions set out in the Labour Party Conference Policy Statement on Syria as is humanly possible now and in the foreseeable future.
3. As far as I can ascertain, you have not put forward an alternative strategy to deal with IS; it's all very well opposing the proposals from the Prime Minister, but, if you have no other strategy, you are simply saying "do nothing" - completely unacceptable!
4. My penultimate question to you is this - under what circumstances would you be prepared, as Leader of the Labour Party, not as an individual, to support military action in Syria against IS and to help in bringing about an end to the terrible Syrian Civil War?
5. Why do you persist in using the emotionally misleading and pejorative accusation that the Prime Minister is proposing to bomb Syria, when he is actually proposing to bomb strategic IS targets in Syria? This is simply a re-iteration of the deceitful propaganda used by 'Stop The War' and is disgraceful!"
Eternal optimist I may be, but I'm not banking on a positive response this time!
In the end, I decided to respond to the request from our Glorious Leader to let him have our views on the likely vote on action against Islamic State to take place in the House of Commons later this week - here's what I said;
"1. As you have already set out your stall publicly on the actions proposed by the Prime Minister to stop the heinous activities of Islamic State (IS) and, as far as I can see, have no intention of considering any change to your stance, why are you putting Labour Party members through this sham of a consultation? I suspect that this is simply a manoeuvre to pressurise those who fundamentally disagree with you in the PLP to toe your line!
2. I've actually read the full Statement compiled by the Prime Minister in response to the concerns of the Foreign Affairs Committee and find that he has set out a compelling and comprehensive case for his strategy of military, diplomatic, and humanitarian measures, working with our close allies and, potentially, Russia and other influential international players, to combat IS; it's not perfect, but neither is the world within which we live, and, in my view, it's as close to meeting the four conditions set out in the Labour Party Conference Policy Statement on Syria as is humanly possible now and in the foreseeable future.
3. As far as I can ascertain, you have not put forward an alternative strategy to deal with IS; it's all very well opposing the proposals from the Prime Minister, but, if you have no other strategy, you are simply saying "do nothing" - completely unacceptable!
4. My penultimate question to you is this - under what circumstances would you be prepared, as Leader of the Labour Party, not as an individual, to support military action in Syria against IS and to help in bringing about an end to the terrible Syrian Civil War?
5. Why do you persist in using the emotionally misleading and pejorative accusation that the Prime Minister is proposing to bomb Syria, when he is actually proposing to bomb strategic IS targets in Syria? This is simply a re-iteration of the deceitful propaganda used by 'Stop The War' and is disgraceful!"
Eternal optimist I may be, but I'm not banking on a positive response this time!
ISIS targets or not, this still amounts to bombing Syria, which will lead to the deaths of innocents, just as the French bombing has done over the last few weeks. This isn't necessarily an argument for or against the proposed action in itself, but Corbyn is not engaging in deceitful propaganda. You can't magic ISIS strongholds out of Syrian territory.
ReplyDeleteCorbyn has also raised, time and again, the need to attack ISIS's funding (oil sales to our mates Turkey and money from our good ol chums the Saudis being among them I believe). We need to stand up to both countries, even if it means completely breaking with the latter. We do NOT need such a disgusting regime that also uses Islam to legitimise its abysmal human rights record as allies. How anyone (not you personally Michael or Howie) can be against ISIS yet ok with the Saudis is beyond me.
Finally, Corbyn has every right to express his views and try and win others to them. Being 'prepared to bomb Syria or not' should not be turned into a matter of principle or a condition of leadership. It is one horrible, complex mess out there, and so far Cameron has not convinced me that our intervention would be helpful. I completely support the Vienna talks and attempts to reach a political solution, which Corbyn has also consistently advocated before these talks were announced. The man speaks sense on a lot of matters, and I am sick to the back teeth of those who WILL NOT accept his democratic mandate turning these sort of serious matters into an attempt to undermine him. This is disgraceful and frankly an insult to our slaughtered brothers and sisters in Paris.
Je Suis Humanite!