Motion to bomb Islamic State headquarters and others installations operated by Islamic State in Syria
I went yesterday to the House of Commons to listen with intent and in situ to all the arguments presented on the Syrian issue.
66 Labour MPs out of 231 Labour MPs supported the government motion - this means in practical terms that the vast majority of Labour MPs supported Jeremy Corbyn's position against bombing Syria. So all the talk by the mass media about a rebellion against Jeremy Corbyn is utter and absolute rubbish.
1) The Conservatives presented the case not as war on Syria but as an extension of military operations presently carried out in Iraq despite the fact that crossing into Syria will effectively mean entering into another country without the express authorization of the Syrian government.
2) In Iraq, air attacks are carried out in cooperation with Iraqi ground forces. In Syria, air attacks will be carried out mainly in Raqqa (a town that is reportedly being used as headquarters by Islamic State in order to carry operations in Syria and elsewhere).
3) The motion presented in the House of Commons makes no mention of British ground forces being involved in Syria and it leaves open the question about what kind of effectiveness bombing operations will have without the involvement of troops on the ground.
4) Trying to deflect the issue of not having British ground forces, or EU ground forces or NATO ground forces ore regional forces from neighbouring countries, the Conservatives gave a figure that was constantly changing mentioning groups that are already fighting in Iraq against both the Syrian government, against Islamic States and against each other (40,000, 50,000, 70,000) and that therefore lack any kind of coordination.
5) The issue of Turkey and of Saudi Arabia supporting Islamic State was brought up several times and the question about who is supporting Islamic State was insistently made without having any formal reply from the Government that put forward the motion.