I listened very
carefully to the Prime Minister‘s statement in Parliament on why he believes
Britain should start bombing ISIS in Syria.
Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn asked him: “What impact does he believe an intensified air campaign will
have on civilian casualties—civilian casualties—in the ISIS-held territory and
the wider Syrian refugee crisis, which is so enormous and so appalling?”
Mr Cameron answered: “On
the important question of civilian casualties, I believe that the truth of the
matter is that British capabilities provide one of the best ways to reduce
civilian casualties. In a year and three months of the action we have taken in
Iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties. We believe that we
have some of the most accurate weapons known to man.”
Incredulously, he then added: “I
think extending our activities into Syria is likely to reduce civilian
casualties rather than increase them.”
This analysis recalls a
very famous comment on the impact of bombing in the Vietnam war. The
subsequently famous Associated Press correspondent Peter Arnett, who later
reported for CNN, in reporting the US attack Bến Tre city on 7 February 1968
wroite:
'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major
said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and
shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong.”
I fear the same fate awaits Syrian civilians currently existing in ISIS strongholds
No comments:
Post a Comment