UNITED STATES (OBSERVATORY) – Although the British Prime Minister made the right decision, attacking Syria, British voters did not appreciate this step because of fresh memories of the war in Iraq and the fear of confrontation of superpowers, writes Dan Hodges for the Daily Mail.
According to the journalist, now Mei will have to transfer the war from the skies of Syria to the walls of the parliament in order to enlist the support of his “main partner” – the British people.
“British Prime Minister Theresa May wins the battle, but loses the war for Syria. The British Armed Forces acted with predictable courage and professionalism, and according to preliminary estimates of the damage, they destroyed the conveyor of the death of chemical weapons, which was used against women, children and men of the Duma,” writes Dan Hodges for the Daily Mail.
However, an equally important and brutal battle, whose goal is to convince the British of the need for an effective response to the ” gangsterism ” of Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin, is not going according to plan. ” In reality, in the battle for the hearts and minds of the British, it is at this moment a step away from defeat, ” the author emphasizes.
Unfortunately, according to Hodges, her decision that “Barbarism of Assad “can not be left without consequences, it was her first mistake. “This was due to the fact that the country, currently depleted by the economy regime, remembering the destructive legacy of Iraq and frightened by the prospect of a direct clash of superpowers, does not share her opinion,” the journalist said.
According to a YouGov poll, only 22% of the British supported a missile attack on the Syrian army, while 43% opposed it. In addition, a survey on Mail on Sunday showed that the population did not approve and its decision to bypass the parliament in the ratio of 2: 1 – and a significant part of the British against the repetition of this scenario.
May presented the reasons for the blow to the Cabinet and reached an agreement on this matter with Donald Trump. «However, she neglected contact with her most important partner – the British people. As a result, while British troops were preparing to climb the skies above the Mediterranean, their government was going AWOL, “Hodges writes.
Where there was to be evidence, a strategy and a rationale for the intervention, there was emptiness. And this vacuum was quickly filled by supporters of ” cyber-conspiracy theories “, ” comical apologists of Putin ” and Jeremy Corbin.
There were days, and the differences between these groups became less obvious. ” However, these differences were still more obvious than attempts by the government to calmly and convincingly defend the need for military action, ” the journalist said.
And there are grounds for this, according to Hodges. In 2013, the British were told that giving up Syria would save lives. They were told that Assad and Putin had made a deal to destroy chemical weapons, which was ” a lie.” “We were told that negotiations are the best way to peace. Russia’s interference and Moscow’s point-blank use of the veto in the UN has closed this path forever,” the author believes.
At the moment, there is an incredible situation where the ” two hostile states ” and the official opposition of Her Majesty de facto jointly operate against the British government. According to the ministers, now that there is no need to fulfill the requirements of operational camouflage, they are much easier to defend ” aggressive”The answer to the” atrocities of Assad.”
“But they also recognize that they need to act more effectively against the Syrian-Russian propaganda machine, or, more precisely, against the Syrian-Russian Labor propaganda machine,” Hodges said.
“May is time to strike back. Now the battle must go not in the heavens over Syria, but in the House of Commons. Tomorrow she will address the parliament with a speech about her decision to strike at Assad. She, her ministers and the party should stop being ceremonious and go on the offensive against their opponents,” the author emphasizes.
First of all, they must expose the “cowardice” of Jeremy Corbyn and his “hypocrisy”. “Since every sentence that comes from his mouth is needed for a single purpose – to protect Assad and his” bloodthirsty regime”. “Corbyn does not need a proportional answer – he needs no response,” the journalist believes.
Then, the British Prime Minister and her colleagues need to get rid of “fantasies” called “solving the crisis within the UN framework.” It should be clearly explained that the Russian veto, coupled with the “cynical tutelage” of Assad Putin, makes the option of solving the crisis through the UN deadlock.
“If we let such maniacs like Assad use chemical weapons with impunity, then not only Syrian children will be burned. In 2013, we did not take any action, because chemical weapons in the Middle East was, by all accounts, “not our business. Five years later it was on the streets of Salisbury,” warns the author.
“Last week, the Prime Minister did the right thing by ordering the British forces to change the limits permissible in terms of production, use and distribution of chemical weapons. However, she could not draw the British people behind her. Tomorrow, she should do it,” sums up Dan Hodges.