Streeting Attacks Miliband for Failing to Stop Assad in 2013
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has criticised Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, over his failure to back military action against Assad in 2013, saying the “hesitation” created a “vacuum” that Russia filled. The Telegraph has more.
Mr. Miliband, the Energy Secretary, was Labour leader when he led efforts to torpedo Lord Cameron’s attempt to launch strikes in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
On Thursday night Mr. Streeting, the Health Secretary, said that “if the West had acted faster, Assad would have been gone”.
But Mr. Miliband rebuked his Cabinet colleague on Friday morning, saying it was “just wrong” to suggest Assad would have been forced from power sooner if the West had acted at the time.
He also said he had no regrets about his decision to vote against the U.K. joining U.S.-led strikes after the House of Commons narrowly rejected the move.
Asked if he regretted voting against proposed missile strikes in 2013, Mr. Miliband told Sky News: “No, I don’t… I welcome the fall of President Assad.
“Back in 2013 we were confronted with whether we should have a one-off, potential one-off, bombing of Syria but there was no plan for what this British involvement would mean, where it would lead and what the consequences would be and I believed that in the light of the Iraq war we could never send British troops back into combat unless we were absolutely clear about what our plan was, including what an exit strategy was.
“To those people who say that president Assad would have fallen if we had bombed him in 2013, that is obviously wrong because President Trump bombed president Assad in 2017 and 2018, so he didn’t fall.
“I welcome the fall of a brutal dictator but I think the view that some people seem to be expressing about history is just wrong.”
Mr. Miliband said the vote against U.K. military action in Syria in 2013 demonstrated that the nation had learnt “the right lessons” from the Iraq War.
It was suggested to the Labour frontbencher that the failure to act had not only given Assad confidence but had also emboldened Russia on the world stage.
He said: “I think it is very easy for people to say that the answer to the problems of the world is British military intervention.
“But as I said earlier, in this case we have a clear understanding of what the consequences might have been because in 2017 and 2018 there was military action against President Assad and it certainly didn’t precipitate the fall of his regime.
“I took the decisions I did because the British involvement in Iraq led to the deaths of our troops and was, rightly in my view, seen as a very serious error and so without re-going over all of that history, I think we drew the right lessons from that.”
His comments stand in stark contrast to those made by Mr. Streeting during an appearance on the BBC Question Time programme.
Mr. Streeting said: “With hindsight, I think we can say, looking back on the events of 2013, that the hesitation of this country and the United States created a vacuum that Russia moved into and kept Assad in power for much longer.”
He added: “I think if the West had acted faster, Assad would have been gone.
“Would that have led to a better Syria? I don’t know. We know from our own foreign policy history that inaction is a choice, but so is action, and we’ve seen in other cases, like Libya, that it did not lead to a better future.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
That’s all very well, but the Real Syrian People didn’t want their President Assad “gone”.
It’s Israel stirring up the West to get President Assad “gone”, and they will not be satisfied until they have made their Isaiah 17 Prophecy come true, by reducing Damascus to a heap of ruins, in revenge for Assyrians defeating Hebrews a couple of thousand years ago.
As if that makes any sense at all…
I still remember a vivid dream I had years ago, in which I was high in the sky, looking down upon the countries of the Middle East. Suddenly I saw a huge missile launched from the Northwest corner of Iran, heading straight for Jerusalem, but at the last minute, it veered sharply north to head for Damascus. I couldn’t see who fired it.
The reason there was so much opposition, at least outside the Labour Party, to attacking Syria in 2013 was the bad experience in Iraq2 and Afganistan. In each of those cases there was considerable doubt anbout their legitimacy while their purposes were unclear. No statement of what success would look like was ever mafe by the government.
As it turned out each of those years-long military actions was unsatisfactory. People anticipated more of the same in Syria and were right to be doubtful.
Subsequent western influenced action in North Africa was similarly disastrous. Many dead, many displaced and militants became active. Russia gained a foothold and millions set off for western Europe as unwanted immigrants.
Taken together the elites have been disastrous for the people they should have represented in the west while causing untold death and disruption in the middle east. The chance of getting the likes of Blair and Cemeron into court as a defendant or getting any sort of apology from either of them (or many others) is negligible.
What a pathetic diversion from the real issue – bonkers Miliband’s Net Zero catastrophic obsession.
Streeting and Miliband both want Britain to ‘punch above its weight’ – Miliband by ‘leading the world’ on decarbonisation, Streeting by dropping bombs on other countries.
Let’s just remind ourselves of the 29 Aug 2013 motion that Miliband orchestrated a vote against: ‘This house deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law; agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons…. Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action; therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and, whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission; Believes that the United Nations Security Council… Read more »
The House may well deplore the use of chemical weapons in Syria in 2013 but who actually used them? The UN investigated 16 reports of use of chemical weapons in Syria in 2013, of which five were confirmed (see https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n13/617/84/pdf/n1361784.pdf). Three of the five concerned attacks against soldiers of the Syrian Arab Republic. Many alleged attacks reported by UK, France and USA could not be confirmed. One commentator at the time expressed the opinion that “As a weapon of war, they [chemical weapons] have been utterly useless … but as a propaganda weapon to justify Western military intervention, they can be priceless”. It is hardly credible that Syria used chemical weapons against its own army. It is possible that weapons were stolen by what are today called ‘rebels’ or maybe they were given to them by the CIA or MI6, who knows? All of the ex-intelligence agents and internationally respected guests on https://www.youtube.com/@judgingfreedom are unanimous in assigning the funding source of the various ‘rebel’ groups who overran Syria in their shiny new tanks and armoured troop carriers to primarily the CIA (with MI6 never far behind), who were presumably surprised there was so little resistance. But with the Syrian industry… Read more »
Quite right, there were strong hints at the time thie CW attack was a false flag.
Incredibly, it seems milliband made the right call, for the first and last time in his career.
Nature abhors a
vacuumMilibandNature abhors vacuity in all its manifestations.
🙂
I don’t know where the narcissistic idea that it is the duty of the west to bomb other nations into “democracy” comes from.
It doesn’t work.
Is it okay to bomb them into totalitarianism?
Is that narcissistic?
Does that work?
All bombs do is cause death, destruction and massive suffering. A peaceful, helping hand is, however, always welcome.
What?
A few decades ago the Brits were the go to people when it came to affairs of the near east. How low standards have fallen. The ignorance seeps through every pore now. It isn’t just one or two levels beneath true understanding it is just the lower depths of stupidity. Of course stupidity is a difficult matter because it is never a problem for the stupid because their stupidity precludes them from seeing at as a problem. There isn’t a sufficiently lurid metaphor for a stupid person in power. A monkey with a hand grenade perhaps.
Streeting is really lining himself up for the top job, isn’t he? Hardly seems to be out of then news. However, while I am usually only too happy to see any Miliband criticised, I am with Ed on this one. Britain should keep its nose out of other countries business unless they are immediate threat.
That area, Lebanon and Syria and Palestine. The Venetians established very profitable trading relations and you could argue that it was the most beautiful cross-pollination in the history of the West. This current and attack and genocide isn’t an attack on Islam or even an attack on Arabs or Palestinains – consider the centres of Christianity that have been destroyed. This Levantine culture represents a spirit of the old world of beauty and that is why they are so keen to destroy it.
You wouldn’t even notice it if you don’t value that culture. I suspect it is a matter of temperament but every real aesthete holds Levantine culture close to his heart. For me if you want to desroy that then you want to destroy me.
May I just add this marvellous photo of The Millipede from Breitbart to your great DS collection: