Hilary Benn's Dreadful Speech

[NigelFargate]

Few speeches in the House of Commons have received such accolades as Hilary Benn's last week during the debate on the decision to extend the UK's bombing campaign to Syria. Not only was it warmly applauded in the chamber, but most commentators in the media have been vying with each other to heap praise on what has been generally regarded as one of the best speeches on foreign affairs in living memory.

 

I profoundly disagree with this near consensus. Indeed, having watched it, I feel like the boy in the story about the king and his magic suit of clothes, for the following reasons. The speech was high on emotionally charged rhetoric, but very low on substance or even basic logic. We all know by now what a vile organisation is, but this does not of itself justify the course of action favoured by the Cameron government. Indeed, Benn's speech was in my view notable for a near complete absence of any serious consideration of the consequences of a bombing campaign as outlined in Cameron's address to the Commons.

 

We know that Cameron underpinned his case for bombing with a 'strategy' involving 70,000 'moderate' Syrian fighters, a figure which has quite rightly been widely questioned, even ridiculed, by various experts on Syria. The figure is redolent of the '45 minutes' moonshine in Blair's dodgy dossier. Moreover, even if this figure was correct, most of the Syrian opposition are far more interested in fighting the Syrian government than they are in fighting Isis. If we armed the so called 'Free Syrian army' with even more weapons, the outcome is likely to be a never ending proxy war between these forces and their Western and Wahabi backers on the one hand and the Syrian government, Russia and Iran on the other, leading to even more bloodshed.

 

Cameron, of course, is a serial supporter of armed interventions in the Middle East, all of which have turned out to be disasters. There is no reason to assume that his latest foray into Syria will be any different.

 

Benn's speech essentially fell into the 'we must do something' category. But this is no substitute for a strategy. Indeed, I think it was irresponsible of Benn to advocate military action without any overt consideration of the possible consequences. Moreover, perhaps we should also consider the reasons why his speech was so warmly applauded, both inside and outside the Commons. In my view, it had a lot to do with the attempt to destroy Corbyn's leadership. No wonder Tory MPs were cheering so loudly and the Conservative media were lavishing such praise on it.

[cassity]

I couldn't agree more. Benn's father will be turning in his grave.

[I1L2T3]

I would agree with a lot of what the OP said.

 

The speech was fantastic, make no mistake. It was powerful.

 

Sadly, almost the very next day Cameron broke two bits of news that maybe he should have shared with Benn first:

 

1. It is essentially an open-ended war, with an initial two year estimate.

2. The 70,000 fighters don't exist as a coherent group. There is no real army on the ground.

 

Still, many MPs have got their war. Got what they wanted.

[Gamston]

I couldn't agree more. Benn's father will be turning in his grave.

 

Very original .

[betterman]

I would agree with a lot of what the OP said.

 

The speech was fantastic, make no mistake. It was powerful.

 

Sadly, almost the very next day Cameron broke two bits of news that maybe he should have shared with Benn first:

 

1. It is essentially an open-ended war, with an initial two year estimate.

2. The 70,000 fighters don't exist as a coherent group. There is no real army on the ground.

 

Still, many MPs have got their war. Got what they wanted.

 

Both points were obviouse to anyone with more than a couple of brain cells, so I am sure that Hilary Benn and everyone else in the house would have already known.

[tinfoilhat]

I would agree with a lot of what the OP said.

 

The speech was fantastic, make no mistake. It was powerful.

 

Sadly, almost the very next day Cameron broke two bits of news that maybe he should have shared with Benn first:

 

1. It is essentially an open-ended war, with an initial two year estimate.

2. The 70,000 fighters don't exist as a coherent group. There is no real army on the ground.

 

Still, many MPs have got their war. Got what they wanted.

 

But the Raf also targeted oil refineries to, presumably slow down ISIS funding, which you rightly pointed out needed to be stopped. Not bad for day one.

[Solomon1]

In my view, it had a lot to do with the attempt to destroy Corbyn's leadership. No wonder Tory MPs were cheering so loudly and the Conservative media were lavishing such praise on it.

 

Totally agree

[Hesther]

You sum up my feelings pretty well there, Nige.

[Stoatwobbler]

I couldn't agree more. Benn's father will be turning in his grave.

 

Tony Benn was still alive when his son supported the Iraq war in 2003.

 

As to the speech, it might have been a fine bit of oratory, but the arguments were essentially a rehash of the arguments we heard used to justify the Iraq war. If military action in Syria was justified on the same basis as the Iraq war then I would actually be opposed to it.

[I1L2T3]

But the Raf also targeted oil refineries to, presumably slow down ISIS funding, which you rightly pointed out needed to be stopped. Not bad for day one.

 

Yes, I'd much rather we hit economic targets away from population centres. I don't have a problem with that.