William Sherman, a man with a deep understanding of war, once remarked that it was “all hell”. We must have this thought foremost in our minds when we consider the situation at hand in Syria and the implications of tonight’s veto of the proposed Security Council resolution on the matter. There are those who are calling for the use of force by some states against Syria in an effort to resolve this matter. 

I am queasy about the viability of this option. Sherman’s remark rings loudly in my ears, as it should in the mind of all policy makers. A continuation of policy by other means, perhaps - but war remains hell. Any attack on Syria is that; an extension of hell to a whole new level. One can call it “humanitarian”; but we will be making war on a people, killing them, destroying their homes and work places and disrupting their lives. I am no pacifist, but we need this recognition of the horror that we will unleash with the use of force.

We must also consider whether the use of force will improve the lives of the Syrian people. I am not convinced that the forcible removal of the Assad regime will immediately, materially improve the lives of the Syrian people. The events in Libya since the fall of Gaddafi must stand as a severe warning to us - if we use our air power to create a vacuum in Syria, then we must be prepared to fill it in order to ensure that what comes after is better than Assad. Syrians do not deserve to suffer under this tyrant - but nor do they deserve to suffer the anarchy that may well follow his removal.

Syria is a country of many faiths and ethnicities. She is bordered by a collection of states with different outlooks on the world and long, complex histories with her - Israel and the Golan Heights, Turkey and Antioch, Lebanon and Hezbollah, Iraq and her refugees. Within, there are already a variety of armed movements opposing the regime, as well as the regime’s own armed forces. If central authority is removed, what is to guarantee that they will work together to promote a stable regime? The gravitational pull of a black hole in Syria will draw in her neighbours and this will intensify the conflict.

If the Security Council votes to approve the use of force, then I am happy to acquiesce to the operation that follows - as over Libya. If it is a success, then I will be a happy man; but not as happy as the people of Syria will be. But the lessons of history are already being written in the torture chambers of Libya and we are fools if we turn a deaf ear. We must have UN authorisation; and we must remember that the UN is designed to restrain the use of force, not promote it. If the UN is reluctant to let us wage war then it works exactly as it was intended and should work.

I cannot fathom the horrors of the Assad regime. But I worry that in our haste to make war to rid ourselves of him, we are not looking ahead - how we can ensure that what replaces him is peaceful, stable and democratic. If the Syrian people deserve a democratic regime, they do not deserve to have to suffer even more than they already have in order to gain it. They certainly do not deserve to have war made on them by outside governments to try and bring it about - a force that will vanish as soon as Assad does, if Libya is anything to go by, leaving them alone to fend for themselves in a bloody pit of vipers. 

War is all hell. Syria is becoming its own form of hell. We are foolish to believe we can wash away hell with more hell, and we must think long and hard about this road before we charge down it.