The great American industrialist Henry Ford famously declared that history was “bunk”. George Santayana, the Spanish-born American philosopher, was associated with the much paraphrased words: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Both quotations came to mind this month when Britain’s House of Commons debated air strikes against ISIL targets in Syria. Listening to those advocating and warning against military action in a war-torn state, I was struck by two arguments. While the former camp issued a call to arms to defeat ISIL, they did so with an appeal not to be hamstrung by history – not least Britain’s disasters in Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011). The latter camp, raging against those who would lead the UK down the road to yet another Middle East conflict, implored the Commons not to strike Syria – specifically because of Iraq and Libya.
Britain may have declined as a world power, but as a leading member of Nato and with its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it remains a force in the world. A UK paralysed by past failures is hardly in keeping with its role as a world player.
In coming to the aid of French and American allies already engaged in Syria, Britain’s vote to begin military sorties was, its proponents argued, simply an extension of military action against ISIL targets in neighbouring Iraq, endorsed in a September 2014 Commons vote.
Yet here is where I continue to feel troubled as fighter jets circle Syria – and reflect more Santayana’s position than Ford’s.
The UN Security Council plan adopted last week endorsing talks between the Syrian government and opposition in early January, as well as a ceasefire, was welcome progress.
For me, however, and without a credible plan to win the peace in Syria that includes agreement over the future of Bashar Al Assad, those British parliamentarians who voted to join the air strikes remain tied to past failures. In other words, while the failure of Britain and America to properly plan following the 2003 invasion of Iraq caused mayhem, and the UK’s initially successful air strikes in Libya soon turned sour, there was a “things will be better next time” rationale behind some admittedly powerful words from many MPs espousing Syrian intervention.
Such blind hope has haunted western involvement in Middle Eastern affairs for some time. It fell on one MP to flag up Britain’s successful intervention in Sierra Leone’s civil war to make the point that modern-day western military engagement hasn’t always been a disaster.
That much is true, but it is the Arab region that has been dominating western foreign policy over recent years – not West Africa. And, here, history has taught us plenty. It has taught us that while western military can take care of a poor Saddam Hussein Iraqi army and even, in time, perhaps ISIL itself, it is what happens next that continues to fox western governments.
If the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then the likes of Britain are well overdue a visit from the medical authorities.
In a complicated Syria with its groups and factions, not to mention Mr Al Assad himself, the lack of a comprehensive master plan among international actors to solve the crisis is as stark – and, in many ways, as tragic – as the blood that continues to spill. Why? Because history – and the most recent history – tells us so.
So, as 2015 wraps up, where does this leave the Syrian people? It leaves them with the hope that America, Britain and France (and Russia, effectively leading its own coalition) will bomb ISIL and its ilk into oblivion and, in doing so, their collective wisdom – and newly adopted UN resolution – will somehow find peace in the tragedy that is Syria. In essence, it leaves them with the hope that Henry Ford was right all along – and that history is indeed “bunk”.
Alasdair Soussi is a freelance journalist, who has worked across Africa, Europe and the Middle East
On Twitter: @AlasdairSoussi
