David Henwood

Oxford Mail:

Oxford city councillor for Cowley

Junior doctors and the NHS are under pressure, Oxfordshire County Council is considering closing all eight children’s centres, and the government brandishes the word austerity like a cure-all pill.

So why bomb Syria?

The government pays £15,000 for every smart bomb from the factory.

By the time it is delivered to its target, storage costs, transporting and programming have brought the final cost over £50,000.

Add in the price of target destruction and the rebuild and it exceeds £1million.

With £150,000 we could build a new school at St James Old School in Cowley.

Isn’t that a smarter way to use our precious public money?

Education is far more powerful than a smart bomb.

Then combine the potential human and environmental costs.

We must ask our leaders if it is really a smart action to bomb Syria.

The current knee-jerk reaction to recent atrocities in Paris is understandable.

Many, including myself, feel bombing Syria will not make us safer.

Regardless of the outcome of lasy night’s vote in the House of Commons we must make sure we do not bomb Syria today, tomorrow, or in a year’s time. Many will feel a need for revenge, but after the bombing will we actually feel safer?

I feel we won’t.

Indeed, we will escalate the refugee crisis, displace more families, commit them to homelessness as a refugee, and provide Isis with yet more propaganda to fuel recruitment campaigns.

The government’s seven points plan is:

* Protect the UK at home by maintaining robust counter-terrorism capabilities
* Generate negotiations on a political settlement, while preserving the moderate opposition
* Help deliver a government in Syria that can credibly represent all of the Syrian people
* Degrade and ultimately defeat Isis, through coalition military and wider action
* Continue leading role in humanitarian support and forestall further migratory flows towards Europe
* Support stabilisation already under way in Iraq and plan for post-conflict reconstruction in Syria
* Work in close partnership with allies across the Middle East to mitigate the impact of Isis and other violent extremist groups.

These plans are ambitious and are not SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant or time-bound). They are at the most, a wishlist.

Looking at the plan, it is clear the objectives could also be met without having to bomb.

However, point three which implies a regime change, is both arrogant and patronising, and indicates little knowledge of the complex and diverse state of Syria.

I really do feel ‘delivering a government’ isn’t Britain’s responsibility.

When we can’t invest in our own economy or keep our children’s centres open, how can we justify bombing Syria and then have the responsibility to ‘rebuild’ it.

A Cowley resident called me last night and asked, “How do you change the government’s opinion?

“How do you explain to the common Syrian why we are bombing their country?

“Won’t this just give Isis a licence to bomb ours?”

Many Conservative politicians agree bombing Syria will not make us safer, including defence committee chairman Julian Lewis.

He said: “Air strikes alone will not be effective – they have to be in co-ordination with credible ground forces.”

Being in a position of political power is a responsibility not just isolated to our own local communities, but is also an opportunity to facilitate change.

The bomb will never change a value – it simply isn’t powerful enough to change the things we believe in.

When Jeremy Corbyn was elected I felt at last Labour had a principled leader with the strength to say no.

Even the infamous Trident nuclear bomb isn’t a deterrent, it’s a cold war dinosaur born of fear, which costs over £40bin to the UK tax payer.

We need smarter defences.

I believe we don’t need to bomb Syria. I believe we have far more powerful tools at our disposal which do not involve warfare and death.