Labour cabinet split over Syria as Miliband defends blocking military action after Streeting criticism
Wes Streeting criticised Labour’s previous position on Syria after Ed Miliband led efforts to block Lord Cameron’s 2013 attempt to launch military action
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Ed Miliband has defended his decision to vote against military action in Syria while he was Labour leader, dismissing criticism from Wes Streeting as “just wrong”.
The public split in Sir Keir Starmer’s cabinet began after the health secretary criticised Labour’s previous position on Syria, saying hesitation from the UK and US “kept Assad in power for much longer”.
Mr Miliband, who is now Sir Keir’s energy secretary, led efforts to block Lord Cameron’s attempt to launch strikes in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons in 2013.
Mr Streeting told BBC Question Time on Thursday: “With hindsight, I think we can say, looking back on the events of 2013, that the hesitation of this country and the United States created a vacuum that Russia moved into and kept Assad in power for much longer.”
He added: “I think if the West had acted faster, Assad would have been gone.
“Would that have led to a better Syria? I don’t know. We know from our own foreign policy history that inaction is a choice, but so is action, and we’ve seen in other cases, like Libya, that it did not lead to a better future.”
But when Mr Miliband was asked if he regrets his decision, he said: “No, I don’t … I welcome the fall of president Assad. Back in 2013 we were confronted with whether we should have a one-off, potential one-off bombing of Syria.
“But there was no plan for what this British involvement would mean, where it would lead, and what the consequences would be.
“And I believe that in the light of the Iraq war, we could never send British troops back into combat unless we were absolutely clear about what a plan was, including what an exit strategy was.
“Now to those people who say that president Assad would have fallen if we bombed in 2013 that’s obviously wrong, because president Trump bombed president Assad in 2017 and 2018, so he didn’t fall.
“So I welcome the fall of a brutal dictator, but I think the view that some people seem to be expressing about history is just wrong.”
In a statement posted to social media, Mr Streeting said: “I did not criticise Ed. On the contrary, I pointed out the challenges of hindsight, Libya and the uncertainty we face about post-Assad Syria today.
“It is frustrating, to put it mildly, to see a nuanced answer to a complicated issue presented as criticism of a good colleague.”
Former president Assad fled the country’s capital Damascus on Sunday after insurgents from the Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) entered the city without resistance.
His departure from Syria on Sunday morning marked the end of more than 50 years of his family’s rule over the country.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments