Andy McSmith's Sketch: David Cameron knows more about what is NOT going to happen in Syria than what will happen
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.When Tony Blair sent British troops into Iraq, he knew what they were there to do – he just could not give a clear reason why. David Cameron had the opposite problem today. He was crystal clear about “why”, but very vague about “what”.
Insofar as he answered that question at all, it was as a sequence of negatives. “Let me stress to people, this is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war or changing our stance in Syria, or going further into that conflict,” he stressed. The list of things the UK is not going to do lengthened during a separate interview by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Regime change, “open ended military intervention” and “boots on the ground” are all also off the menu.
What remained was Mr Cameron’s stern-faced insistence that the Syrian government and anyone else who might use chemical weapons had to be stopped after last week’s attack.
History is not the Prime Minister’s strongest suit. After hearing him say that “almost 100 years ago the whole world came together and said the use of chemical weapons was morally indefensible and completely wrong,” you might suppose that no one but the Syrians had used chemical weapons since the end of the 1914-18.
Actually, Saddam Hussein’s government deployed chemical weapons with horrible results in the 1980s, first against Iran, and later against the Kurds, but in those days he was on better terms with the West than either Syria or Iran, so his atrocities were overlooked.
This time, it appears, something will be done, something that Mr Cameron has promised will be “proportionate” and “legal”, but he did not elaborate on what he means by “legal” in this context.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments