A letter to the Gloucestershire Echo, further to MP Martin Horwood’s decision to support UK involvement in the illegal bombing of Syria…
In his “House notes” of 02 Sept, Martin Horwood suggests that the 285 MPs who opposed the Government’s motion on Syria were either pacifists (by which he means naifs), Little Englanders (by which he means xenophobes) or, well, Labour (who, by definition it would seem, could only possibly be motivated by a desire to damage the coalition).
Absent from this analysis is an appreciation that a great many MPs and constituents opposed the motion because they understand that the drive to bomb Syria has little, if anything, to do with deterring the use of chemical weapons, and everything to do with securing key strategic interests (the removal of a recalcitrant leader allied to Iran and Hizbollah and the shoring up of Israel’s regional hegemony); and furthermore that, to this policy end, “intelligence” is once more being cherry-picked, spun and – in parts – almost certainly fabricated (bless those “Israeli intercepts”, which, lo and behold, “cannot be disclosed”!).
Though not an MP when parliament infamously voted in favour of illegally invading Iraq back in 2003, Martin Horwood has always claimed that he strongly opposed the invasion at the time. Indeed, as recently as 13 June, Martin was making a speech in parliament lamenting the fact that weapons inspectors had not been given more time and chastising the Government of the day for “tactically deploying” arguments and cases to support their “real political objectives”.
The Syria vote therefore represented a golden opportunity for Martin to “walk the walk”; to demonstrate he’d understood the scale and significance of the intelligence deception in the run up to Iraq; and to prove to increasingly sceptical voters that his opposition to the Iraq war has been genuine, and not merely a “tactical deployment”.
He blew it. Big time.