LETTERS SPECIAL: SYRIA

1.

I refer to the continuing debate on the question of extending the remit of the RAF to attack IS in Syria (Letters Special, December 4). Even when living in a time of austerity, we appear to have no difficulty in finding the wherewithal to pay for the manufacture of weaponry to drop bombs on Syria.

The Brimstone bomb is estimated to cost £100,000 each, the Paveway 1V up to £30,000 each, and the Hellfire up to £70,000 each. It is indeed an ill wind that blows nobody any good when one considers the income stream making its way to the arms manufacturers. Let us not forget the innocent people among those who will reap the consequences of the dropping of these bombs in spite of the so-called sophistication of such weaponry.

The UK Government has committed this country to a future full of uncertainty without not only an effective plan incorporating a strategy for the future of the currently benighted Syria but also a sense of what can be regarded as satisfactory exit arrangements.

In that respect, I am reminded of the description by Corelli Barnett of a previous British government committing the country to war; it was like "a man in a barrel going over the Niagara Falls".

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road,

Lenzie.

2.

When I listened to David Cameron refuse on twelve occasions to withdraw his "terrorist sympathisers" remark I thought it not only showed the arrogance of the man but that it was also a mistake that he may come regret in the future. Days later, I think I see an opportunity for Jeremy Corbyn and the SNP to take advantage of the Prime Minister's arrogance.

It is the custom at Westminster that the leader of the Opposition is briefed by the Government on matters of national security. I think Angus Robertson as leader of the SNP group at Westminster is also included in this procedure.

If Mr Cameron is of the opinion that both Mr Corbyn and Mr Robertson are, as a consequence of their refusal to back the Government on bombing Syria, "terrorist sympathisers" then how is it possible that they can be briefed on matters of national security? It is my opinion that both men should refuse any government security briefs until the Prime Minister clarifies this matter.

Richard MacKinnon,

131 Shuna Street,

Ruchill, Glasgow.

3.

I congratulate Derek Miller ( Letters December 4) who has concisely summed up the feeling of many over the issue of Syrian air strikes. I anticipate that France will never forgive Scotland for overwhelmingly voting in Westminster against supportive action. I expect that we can finally bid adieu to any romantic notions about the Auld Alliance.

Those siding with the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who adheres to the quite impossible idea of a political solution, seem to sympathise with the actions of Neville Chamberlain who was a co-signatory of the 1938 Munich Pact (“ Peace in our time”) that gave away part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler to appease his demands and threats.

It is always easier to feel self-righteous choosing to be a dove rather than a hawk. We must remember that we dropped more than three million tons of bombs on Germany during the Second World War and yet it still took almost a year from D-Day until VE day to defeat the Nazis. Similarly, a massive ground force will be required in the Middle East to finish off the job of destroying this evil, blood-thirsty movement. They have brought war in the form of cold blooded murder across the globe.

On November 16, 1934 Winston Churchill asked the same question we are asking ourselves now as he witnessed the rapid rise of Nazi Germany: “What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife.

"Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves – that is the question we have to ask.”

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

4.

The various letters and differing opinions expressed in The Herald indicate the gravity readers share on the UK Parliament's self-imposed action in the escalating Middle East problem. However, in all the condemnation and conversely acclaim little comment has been made of two particular aspects.

First, concerted action with the UN and other leading nations should be taken to ensure the supply of arms to known terrorist factions is stopped. Secondly, greater diplomatic overtures with Mr Putin should be a priority. This could result in a better bonding of our respective nations in eliminating the growing worldwide threats of IS, al Qaeda and other terror organisations.

The downing of the Russian will have undoubtedly concentrated Russian opinion. Now is the time for the harnessing of both reaction and action in dealing with such outrageous acts. A united policy of intent to eradicate terrorist cells and misguided followers is surely preferable to the much publicised clamour and hype for air strikes.

Inevitably the indigenous peoples of the selected targets are the first casualties of war. As evidenced by Hilary Benn's recent oratory, words can convince.

Perhaps our UK Government should utilise such talent internationally. Now that would be real political leadership.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue,

Giffnock.

5.

Hilary Benn is entitled to his opinion on bombing Syria. We are not bombing IS; we are bombing Syria, a sovereign country without its approval and the two acts are not the same.

Ronald J Sandford writes (Letters, December 4) in praise of the performance given by Mr Benn in support of the bombing of Syria, to the effect that his contribution "ran counter to the views of the Leader of the Labour Party”.

The opinion voiced in the chamber by Mr Benn also seems to run counter to the views he expressed in an interview with the Independent newspaper on November 15 after the Paris attacks.

Asked if he thought the Government should come forward with a proposal to extend air strikes from Iraq into Syria, the shadow foreign secretary answered: "No. They have to come come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus for now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war.

"The most useful contribution we can make is to support as a nation the peace talks that have started. That is the single most important thing we can do."

So in a short period of two weeks we have had contradictory views presented as heartfelt opinion from the would-be party-leader. If only his father were still alive; now that would be an interesting meeting of minds.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3,

131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

6.

Why can't the Arab League take the lead when it is its member countries that will suffer most if the conflict spreads in the region.

Why don't the rich countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and so on take action rather than expect the Western nations to solve what is patently a regional issue? Saudi Arabia, in particular, is not short of military hardware.

If the Assad regime is overthrown we will potentially be creating another hard-line Islamist state riven with religious divisions and the ability to nurture al Qaeda or other terror organisations.

The rebels are formed from disparate religious or political groups, each with its agenda for a new Syrian state. We are creating more problems for the future.

Let the Arabs sort out their own problems because history has proved that, regardless of what we do, there will always be a backlash from the losing side.

JB Hamilton,

Humbie Road,

Glasgow.

7.

During Wednesday’s Syrian debates in both Houses of the UK Parliament there was reference to the new convention that what is effectively a declaration of war has to be agreed by the House of Commons rather than by the UK Cabinet exercising the royal prerogative.

Significantly, one of the last major acts of the original Scottish Parliament before the Union of 1707 was the Act anent Peace and War of 1703. This stated that, after Queen Anne’s death, no King or Queen Regnant could declare war on Scotland’s behalf or otherwise determine Scottish foreign policy without the express approval of the Scottish Parliament.

Dr Alexander Waugh,

1 Pantoch Gardens,

Banchory, Kincardineshire.