I am moved to write what follows by a terrible feeling of powerlessness as the government of my country rushes towards a war for which it knows it has no mandate.

It appears that a decision has already been taken in Washington DC to launch some sort of attack on Syria. It also seems that the British government wishes to join in that attack. The House of Commons has been recalled but the behaviour of the Opposition Leader (and of the leader of the Liberal Democrats) suggests that they are not prepared to question this involvement with any vigour. If British people wish to oppose this bizarre and perilous adventure, it is therefore up to them to contact their MPs directly.

This posting is designed to help them to do so, calmly, reasonably, politely and logically while there is yet time. A decisive vote against British involvement is still quite possible, and would be an important demonstration of national maturity and responsibility, as well as a permanent check on the incurable enthusiasm of some politicians for war and its alleged glamour and glory.

Here are some arguments which you might wish to use, if and when (as I urge you to ) you contact your MP in the next two days.



It is being suggested (as it always is) that the planned attack will be precise, surgical, proportionate etc etc etc.

The truth is that nobody ever really knows the final consequence of any act of violence. Violence generally results in retaliation, which in this case might take many unpredictable forms.

Wars often begin with minor incidents, minor anyway to start with, which then bleed without ceasing until they have spread a vast red stain on much of the surface of the Earth. They are often begun on the basis of mistaken information, or indeed of lies. They are often begun by credulity, by emotionalism and by the failure of responsible persons to see through propaganda.

That is why thoughtful people hesitate greatly before even contemplating such acts, generally preferring to do them only in self-defence. When the violence involves a military attack on a sovereign country with which we are not at war, the matter is still more risky.

Precision warfare is a myth. On several occasions, supposedly super-accurate airstrikes on Libya resulted in the undisputed deaths of several entirely innocent people, including small children. Our attacks on Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis killed such dangerous persons as a make-up lady at Serbian national TV headquarters. If our concern is for the innocent, the launch of bombs and missiles is an odd way of showing it.

The moral clothing in which this attack is dressed is a mass of rags and tatters. The very same people demanding punishment for the Syrian state (including the discredited Anthony Blair) are those who defend or overlook the terrible mass killings by the Egyptian government. That government, which came to power in a blatant military coup, has - and I put this at its mildest – no more legitimacy than the government in Damascus. What is more, there is no dispute at all about who is responsible for the recent mass shootings of demonstrators in Egypt. Yet neitehr Washington nor London (who claim to be abe to descry Syria's guilt by some sort of magic process) will even concede that a putsch has taken place in Cairo.



If we are outraged by governments that kill their own people, our outrage cannot be selective and aimed at only one government which does this. If it is selective, then it is false and has another purpose. What is that purpose? We are not told.



At the time of writing, the United Nations teams have barely begun their investigation into the episode. The Syrian government deny their involvement. There is no proof that they are lying. It is far from impossible to believe that the rebels have resorted to such weapons. In fact, it makes far more sense for them to have done so than for the Syrian government. That government has the upper hand in its civil war at present. It knows perfectly well that proof of its complicity in the use of poison gas will open it to attack. It also knows that such proof will remove the protection it has had up till now from the UN Security Council and the Russian-Chinese veto.

The rush to take action before those teams have reported is frighteningly reminiscent of the rush to attack Iraq, and the withdrawal of Hans Blix’s inspection teams from that country, which were of course on the point of discovering that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Governments simply cannot be trusted to act wisely or responsibly in such matters. They have repeatedly shown this in recent years. That is why we have a Parliament and a free press, to scrutinize and question such things. What is the rush? Why are we having the sentence first, and the evidence and the verdict afterwards? Mr Cameron should be told he cannot have his war until he has proof that it is justified, and until he can show that the actions that he plans are in the interests of this country.

Please do what you can, while you can. There are many honourable reasons for opposing this attack. Whether you are of the Left or Right, liberal or conservative, Christian, of another faith or without faith, patriot or internationalist, all can unite on the simple issues of preferring truth to falsehood, calm justice to wild, flailing vengeance , and careful deliberation to rush to judgement.

Please, do what you can to stop this.