Ed Miliband's Syria dilemma: what should Labour do? | Polly Toynbee

Backing action in Syria could give Miliband a much-needed injection of gravitas – but, quite rightly, he has conditions

Drumbeats of war thunder in Washington, and No 10 is convinced that the die is cast: Obama will act with or without allies. What should Labour do?

Those close to Ed Miliband suggest he has been misreported by those assuming he has signed up to Syria action. There is no done deal. His conditions need to be met: any action must be legal and limited to defusing further chemical attacks, and military aims must be achievable. None of those look likely to be ascertained by Thursday’s vote in the Commons.

Legality: UN approval is improbable, Russia and China are not likely to give the nod even with an abstention. Even so, it must have been sought. An attack could be justified outside the UN, Kosovo-style, as humanitarian protection – but that looks less than solid. The French suggest it can be done on the grounds of protecting the international regime on the use of chemical weapons. But since Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons treaty, that looks thin too.

Another legal problem: until the UN inspectors report, it’s unclear whether the killer substance used in Ghouta was prohibited. The US used white phosphorous munitions in 2004 in Fallujah, not included in the chemical weapons treaty, though it kills people just as dead. The inspectors need more time – like Iraq all over again. Intercepting evidence proffered by security services is unlikely to be a trump card: every MP cajoled to vote for the Iraq war will recall the dodgy dossier.

As for achievable military aims, the combined voices of former military chiefs from Iraq and Afghanistan suggest that will remain implausible. “Surgical strikes” never are, and to stretch the medical analogy, “first do no harm”: weapons dumps can’t be targeted for fear of releasing the very poisons it wishes to prevent. Above all, what is an achievable aim in a military intervention that risks stirring the Middle East hornet’s nest in unpredictably terrifying ways?

Miliband can take Labour back from the brink on the reasonable grounds that none of these conditions will be clearly met by Thursday’s debate. The US rush to war is to a political not a military timetable: a reaction to the chemical attack need not be rapid. As Labour leaders pore over the options, nothing is certain yet. But Thursday is decision day.

Looked at politically, here’s Miliband’s dilemma. If a leader is accused of lacking gravitas, he is tempted make grave decisions and the gravest of all is to show willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure. When in doubt, the “grown-up” action is always to go to war. Whoever is in power each side of the Atlantic makes no difference, the UK always backs the US. To refuse would be momentous, enormous and frightening. It would be profoundly defining at the next election. Is the man fit to govern? The ghost of …read more