The Syrian Conundrum and Britain

It was, I believe,  Napoleon who stated, "Never interrupt the enemy when he's making a mistake." I found this useful to keep in mind when assessing the ghastly situation in Syria.

That chemical weapons came into play is almost certain. Less certain, but not by much, is just who employed them, with a wide consensus pointing to the regime of Bashar al- Assad. The United States had indicated publicly that if this were the case, they would take action. Britain also indicated as much, to the chagrin of Russia, who supports Assad. (More on that later).

Canada has wisely stayed out of the whole mess, save for the provision of humanitarian aid.

A recent vote in the British House of Commons, however, went against the Prime Minister, David Cameron when it came to going to war with Syria. Shock all round. How could this happen? How could Cameron be seen letting his friend President Barack Obama, down in such a manner?

Well, in fact, he didn't. The MP's in the House of Commons did, something last seen in 1782*.  Looking at this result, and knowing full well that Cameron was not born yesterday, I suspect that this was an "engineered" vote. It makes little sense to lob a few missiles into Syria, and the downside in the Arab world would be considerable. I mean, trading priorities might even be affected.

A second factor, one that Russia has taken to its bearish heart, is that Muslims are killing Muslims. Putin, who would certainly know of Napoleon's dictum, is no doubt delighted, given the nasty situation Russia faces in Chechnya and the North Caucuses. Surely Cameron wouldn't be so ruthless as to stay out of Syria on purpose? Only a politician would ......but wait, he is a politician.

Barack Obama is, or was, a "community organizer" so will probably surge ahead and in some fashion  'organize" the Syrian community.

Good luck with that.

* In that year Parliament voted against continuing the war with the United States. ---Ed.