Today, Young Dave has come to the Commons to tell MPs about his jolly good wheeze suggesting that we should go and bomb Johnny ISIS in Syria. Many on his side of the House are clearly prepared to vote for this latest effort for someone else to be put in harm’s way in order to kill and maim whoever is unfortunate enough to be there when the bombs land. He is in confident mood. But his case is utterly empty.
I say you MP cheppies over thyah! Vote for one to go orf and drop bombs on Johnny Foreigner, wont'cha? Jolly good sheow!
Cameron claims time and again that this is not a Something Must Be Done response following the Paris attacks, but that is exactly what it is. In addition to the French and USA, there are several Middle Eastern countries already queuing up to bomb ISIS. But, although this has made the group less able to move around its territory, it most certainly has not “shrunk” by the 30% Cameron has claimed.
Otherwise, how could ISIS have captured Ramadi and Palmyra? Moreover, as Ewan MacAskill has noted, “The pilots frequently return to base without firing missiles or dropping bombs, partly they say because of fear of hitting civilians but mainly because after a year there is little left to hit. So what can the UK add? Nothing much that is not already being done by the US, France and other allies”.
There would, let us be in no doubt, be no point whatever in joining the bombing. It gets worse: when asked about which troops on the ground would follow through and consolidate gains, Cameron continues to resort to citing the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is claimed to have a strength of 70,000. But the FSA’s primary focus is the régime of Basher al-Assad, and Dave has said we’re not proposing to take action against him.
Fancy getting involved in this, Dave?
The idea that we could command part or all of the FSA to drop what they’re doing and run along to those ISIS areas to help chuck them out is utterly fanciful. Since the USA ceased training rebel groups recently, the amount of leverage that Western countries wanting to damage ISIS could exert on groups like the FSA is vanishingly small. On top of that, the number of rebel groups is, shall we say, significantly more than one.
On top of all of that is our past litany of involvement: Iraq, which was a coherent whole under the Ba’athist régime we helped to topple, is little more than a failed state. Afghanistan is similarly fragile. Libya, which we helped to bomb and then ran away from, really is a failed state, with hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries and across the Mediterranean. Syria has already generated millions of refugees.
So, Dave, what is the point? Sure, the right-leaning part of the press will rejoice at any sign of increased bellicosity, so long as someone else is paying. No convincing evidence has been presented of terrorist threats linked to ISIS in Syria except to say that there have been “plots”, and the rest is secret. All our action could do is to generate more refugees, which we would not have to take - but someone would.
Cameron’s Syria case is not just flawed, but bust. And so is anyone voting for it.
7 comments:
The Bullingdon head boy is lying as usual, just as Bullingdon Georgy did yesterday. But this time it's lethal lying.
The Bullingdon head boy claimed a "70,000 Free Syria Army," the biggest load of bullshit since......well, since Farmer Giles got dumped on at midday.
Firsty, there is no coherent "Free Syria Army." There are merely disparate groups of anti-Assadites, many of them - perhaps a large majority - not even Syrian.
Secondly, there isn't a single scrap of evidence to support the 70,000 figure.
The Bullingdon head boy knows this perfectly well. Hence he's lying in his teeth. Anyone who believes a word he says is a gullible moron. In fact he's a disgusting, hypocritical, cowardly warmonger typical of his type. There still isn't a word from him about the continuing Saudi massacre from land and air of the Houthis in the Yemen, or the imprisonment and torture of dissidents in Gulf states like Bahrain - where, of course, the Navy has just opened a new base next to the established Yank base (what for? Piano practice?).
ISIS is and always has been a creation of the CIA, MI6 and the loony Gulf States, as was the Taliban. The goal is to bring down Assad because he acts too independently, and too further control the price of oil. And as with the Taliban it has been a major Blowback. But none of those responsible could give a shit about the murderous mayhem in the Middle East or Europe so long as the pot is kept hot and stirred. Civilian massacres in Europe are a convenient excuse to strike supporting reactionary attitudes, which is why they will continue.
ISIS could be wiped out as a force in a few months but it isn't in the interests of the West for that to happen.
The Bullingdon head boy knows all of this, which is why his words are those of a ventriloquist's dummy. And you don't have to look far for the ventriloquist(s) and associated spivs, liars and warmongers.
As an addendum....check this out: http://levantreport.com/2015/08/06/former-dia-chief-michael-flynn-says-rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-and-defends-accuracy-of-2012-memo/
Meanwhile, that hissing lizard Bullingdon Philip Hammond is due to join in with his usual lies......
Key questions.
Are these 70,00 fighters cooperating with the Americans and French right now against ISIS? If so, is there any evidence to show how that is working? If not, what is the strategy to get them to work in cooperation with the Americans and French if the UK joins in the bombing?
How is this coordinated with the Syrians Army and the Russians?
What is the strategy for getting them to the negotiating table with Assad after ISIS is defeated?
So far the answer in each case appears to be "wishful thinking".
Guano
I assume these 70,000 fighters could be deployed in 45 minutes
Here's a Good Rebel. Now, here's an ISIS fighter. How do we tell the difference?
Meanwhile he avoids the fact that all it takes for anyone to 'do a Lee Rigby' is to pick up a kitchen knife. Available from Wilko's, about a fiver.
If anyone's serious about 'defeating terror' (Which is what? An ideology? A process?) they're really...no, no they're not.
I'm not sure it even qualifies as a Something Must Be Done response. That would smack of humanitarian intentions, and while the Bullingdon Club may be bursting with lots of things, humanitarian intentions are not among them. Dave just wants to get in a nice bit of wog-bombing because that's his idea of a successful term in office.
Listening to Call-Me-Dave's rhetoric, I am reminded of a line uttered by Kaiser Wilhelm in the BBC's docu-drama about the lead up to WW1, where, sat with his generals and advisers at breakfast says that "A short sharp war [in the Balkans] is just what is needed to lick the Austrians into shape".
Of course, what the world got was neither short, nor sharp, nor confined to the Balkans. And then, just as now, there was a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding between the various parties about which nations would get involved, and on which side. And also a lot of talking at crossed purposes about what the war is to achieve...
In the current context, too many questions are unanswered. Do we support the Kurds? If so, how do we stop Turkey and Russia from bombing them?
Do we prop up Assad? A move that will win us no friends in the region, but might just make us some new enemies. And if we don't, how do we persuade the Russians to drop their support for him?
In the unlikely event ISIS are defeated, who gets their territory? Who decides who gets it?
Post a Comment