Are you pro-war or anti-war?
Because, since our MPs voted to join our allies in bombing Daesh in Syria, we have been given no choice but to decide – one or the other.
Here are our options:
If you are pro-war then you’re quite obviously a bloodthirsty, nasty baby-killer. You don’t care for the innocent Syrian women and children who will undoubtedly die painful deaths as a result of your love of guns, bombs and fast jets.
If you are anti-war, then you are a wonderful gentle soul who wants nothing but love, peace and understanding and, frankly, if everyone just put down the guns, there’s no reason why we couldn’t all live happily ever after and share a nice picnic together in Raqqa.
These two options, it seems, are the two diametrically opposing sides which of all of us need to choose. Or so the people who call themselves ‘anti-war’ would like us all to think.
We’ve all seen them, the moralistic Facebook rants, the angry tweets, the so called Corbynistas and their anti-war lobby.
But whatever they say, the idea that those supporting the airstrikes are ‘pro-war’ is completely absurd. No one sane individual is in favour of war for the sake of war. No one sits at home and thinks to themselves ‘yep, everything is going wonderfully well, we’re all getting on so well, so let’s get a war going and make it a whole lot better.’
Unless you are utterly mad or frankly evil you do not support war for the sake of it.
The people who are backing the action the Government has taken are not doing it with a gun-ho, lust for blood attitude. Instead it is a regretful, weary acceptance, after too long watching from afar, that doing nothing has far greater costs, not least in severe ‘civilian casualties’. The same civilian casualties the anti-war lobby think we are preventing by not getting involved.
Those of us supporting the action don’t think its a great or good think, per se. We just live in the real world and regretfully accept the fact that war has to be the least-worst thing to do, or as is often said- ‘the lesser of two evils.’
So then, now that’s clear, what about those claiming they are anti-war? The Corbynistas and ‘Stop the War’ lobby with their army of hooded bandits. The idea of being anti-war is equally as ridiculous as being bloodthirstily pro-war.
Don’t get me wrong, it is perfectly right and sensible to question any decision to go to war, it should be scrutinised and debated for many hours. Indeed, to do so is the duty of any democratic country. It is equally right and sensible to oppose some wars because, for example, the risks are too high, the intelligence is poor, or you don’t agree with its aims.
Let me be clear, there is a justifiable case for not bombing Syria, a case that has been made by many MPs from all parties, arguing that bombing will make the situation worse, or that they won’t achieve the desired outcome or that other tactics would bring about peace and stability faster. That is a perfectly honourable position to hold and I fully respect those that do.
But that is not what Corbyn, his Stop the War comrades, and his social media army of anti-war youths think or believe.
They, quite simply, don’t want British planes to bomb Syria because they believe war is fundamentally wrong, morally unjustifiable. Pacifists, plain and simple. Corbyn and his meme-creating youth army think they dominate the moral high ground by opposing any military action.
They say they need a clear strategy first; when they get one they still oppose. The say they need a UN resolution first; when they get one they still oppose. They say they need confirmation of no plans for British ground troops; when they get it they still oppose. The list goes on and the reason it does is that no amount of confirmation about anything can convince their dangerously deluded minds that military action is ever a morally justifiable decision.
Pacifism is not a more moral position. On the contrary, it is deeply, deeply immoral.
Pacifism doesn’t just mean peace and love and understanding towards your enemy. It means waving a big fat white flag from a distance, often when confronted by mass murdering terrorists. It is saying in the face of Daesh and its army of murdering, child-raping, evil thugs: ‘what I believe and stand for is not worth defending by force, so I’ll sit back and let you win.’ It is saying this even while these same people, even as you read this, plot to bring terror and mass murder to the streets of Britain.
They say airstrikes condemns innocence to death. What about the innocent screams of the innocents they condemn to death, enabled by inaction? What about the children being raped, the gays thrown off buildings, pilots burned alive in cages, civilians driven from their homes, Christian Kurds slaughtered and enslaved, what about them?
‘Ah! But learn the lessons of history’ they say. But which lessons are those? Who is learning the history of the 1990s, when up to 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda as the world watched on? Who is learning the lessons of the Srebrenica Massacre, where more than 8,000 Muslims were massacred, again, while the world watched on? Who’s learning the lessons of Kosovo where ethnic cleansing killed tens of thousands, thankfully this time halted by the international community?
Somehow, somewhere in recent history, we as a nation have allowed the doctrine of inaction on the world stage to claim a monopoly on morals. Our moral compass has been pointing in the wrong direction for far too long.
So as our MPs have decided to take action in Syria, ask yourself which side you are on, and as you do, bear in mind that often, the cost of inaction is far bloodier and horrifying than the cost of action.