How to stop the bomb Syria bloc

 The most pro-Assad part of Andrew Murray, Chairman of the Stop the War Coaltion's diatribe, is,

"It is now pretty obvious that bombing by western powers is not going to roll back Islamic State. That could only be done by the forces of strong and sovereign states in Iraq and Syria, able to mobilise support from all sections of the people."

He rolls back from that a little in this,

"Such preconditions only serve to prolong the conflict and to give either government or opposition hope that foreign military and diplomatic support could somehow lead to all-out victory."

There is a clear difference between the estimation of the Russian and US interventions. Although he says,

"All foreign military intervention in Syria should end immediately,"

one is,

"the Anglo-American war front in the Middle East,"

while the other is,

"Our bipartisan armchair strategists are obviously riled by Russia’s escalating military involvement in Syria. But it is a fact."

A couple of lies in series in response to the Cox/Mitchell letter, that Britain has been arming Syrian rebels, and that has escalated the refugee flow. "Of course, if humanitarianism was really a consideration, Britain would have stopped funding and arming the Syrian civil war some time ago. It would be welcoming far more refugees from the conflict zone it has fuelled."

A lie about those wanting to stop Assad and Russia's war on Syria. That they wanted Britain to go to war with Assad in 2013,

"In 2013 they were urging war against the Syrian government over its alleged use of chemical weapons."

Two untruths, that Western funding caused the uprising against Assad to militarise, and that the uprising caused the rise of ISIS,

"The rise of Islamic State to control much of Syria’s territory – a consequence of the civil war fostered by the western powers, amongst others – seemed to offer another excuse for intervention."

 

The argument against a no fly zone is asinine. Assad is doing the bombing, a no fly zone would stop him.

"The reality of “no fly zones” and “safe havens”, benign as they sound, is regime change. That is the clear aim of the proposal. Assad government forces – or those supporting it – would be the target."

Of course the areas already cleared of régime forces by the moderate opposition would be the major beneficiaries, but that's not even on the radar of someone who knows so little about Syria.

"In Syria today, the winners from a war to set up safe-havens – an operation which would also require the deployment of grounds troops into Syria – would most likely be IS. It would be best placed to expand into many of the areas cleared of regime forces."

People who supported revolutions used to be called socialists, not neo-conservatives. Shame on Andrew Murray for this slander, and that on the Free Syrian Army he claims is only a figment of Washington imagination.

"Such plans fuel the fantasises of neo-conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic who dream of creating a “third force” capable to taking over Syria in opposition both to Assad and to Islamic State."