Cameron’s attitude seems to be more about easing his own guilt complex because he feels Britain are not doing their bit, which directly affects his standing on the world stage, rather than coming up with a workable solution that will end this ever increasing threat to world security. It’s more machismo than masterplan.
Why anybody
would think that lobbing a few more bombs into Raqqah, killing hundreds of
innocent men, women and children in the process, will aid in degrading Isis is
beyond me. Firstly, the chances of killing any of the principle characters
within the Isis high command is minimal because most of them are based in
outlying villages and only come into Raqqah intermittently, and secondly, it is
difficult to believe that when they do enter Raqqah that they would not take
precautions, such as electronic silence, or travel incognito and mainly after dark. Thirdly, killing
any Isis leader will have no effect on the organisation as the position would
be quickly filled.
At best you
would describe Cameron’s plan as naïve, almost risible, when you consider that two years ago he was urging Parliament to back his proposals to bomb the other side. It lacks any coherent strategy and is
devoid of any endgame. Where these 70,000 moderate Syrians have suddenly come
from, who would play a key part in forming a transitional Syrian government,
seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking lacking any basis in fact or
truth. Many of these so-called moderates are members of Jabhat al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda,
so how moderate they are, is debatable. How many 'moderates' carry Kalashnikovs? Cameron seems to expect that
Assad will step aside while Isis will buckle under the bombing campaign. A 21st
century version of “it will all be over by Christmas”.Neither will happen. Assad is going nowhere all the time he has the support of Putin and Isis have nowhere to go. It is a reminder of the Vietnam war, another war based around bombing campaigns, where the question asked about the Vietcong was, “why do they keep on coming, no matter what we throw at them”? The answer was simple. They had nowhere to go. It was their home, they lived there.
A bombing
campaign will always be ineffective if it is not backed up by ground troops. At
the moment the only effective ground operations are being carried out by
Kurdish forces who are not only having to battle Isis but are also facing
aggression from Assad’s troops as well as Turkish forces. It is the
Kurds who are the key. It may be unpalatable for western politicians to stomach
but the solution to eliminating Isis as well as overthrowing Assad revolves
around western governments sending in western troops in large numbers and
aligning themselves with the Kurds.
A massive
integrated army would be required to steamroller through and over Isis before
turning around and doing the same to the Syrian government forces. Of course
this will incur the loss of life and pictures of soldiers coming home in body
bags. Something politicians are desperate to avoid due to the collateral damage
that will undoubtedly occur to their political careers.
The final
step would be implementing a detailed 10 year plan that would eventually lead to a more
peaceful Middle East. This final step is fanciful, as peace in the Middle East
is nothing more than a pipe dream. To achieve it you would have to set up
separate Sunni and Shia states around the region. Give the Kurds full autonomy,
remove the State of Israel or impose a two state solution upon them where
Palestine has full state recognition and Palestinians have freedom of movement. Stop supplying Saudi Arabia with arms and
weapons and apply sanctions when they export terror to countries such as
Bahrain and Yemen or if they continue to finance the spread of the extreme form of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, The form of Islam that Isis practice. Finally, a blind eye would have to be turned as a second generation of
dictators rise up and fill the void left as western governments withdraw all
troops and influence from the region.
None of the
above will happen, while all a bombing campaign will do is enhance Islamic
State and act as an effective recruiting sergeant for what is nothing more than
a sick criminal cult full of murderers and psychopaths who are using religion as a convenient vehicle to exercise their psychopathic proclivities as well as aiding personal enrichment. The worse scenario for
Cameron would be a reprisal terrorist atrocity being carried out on British
soil. Britain joining in an ineffective bombing campaign may briefly enhance Cameron’s prominence on the world stage, but that will fade quickly, whereas the blood of the murdered, whether they be innocent children in Raqqah or British citizens in the United Kingdom will stain his hands forever.
If the
objective is to remove a threat to the United Kingdom’s security, then an
incoherent strategy based around a blunt instrument such as a bombing campaign,
I fear, will not be successful.
We need
bravery not bravado from our leaders.Mr Expedient.
Chancellor
of the Exchequer, George ‘Gideon’ Osborne’s U-turn on tax credits had nothing
to do with listening, and everything to do with his own political ambitions. Apparently
withdrawing Tax Credits from the low paid was the right decision for the nation
until Osborne realised it was the wrong decision for him personally and would have had catastrophic consequences for his
leadership ambitions. Like most Tories he put his own self-interest first.
Of course
the truth of withdrawing tax credits had nothing to do with the nations
finances and everything to do with Osbornes vile and spiteful ideologue of
punishing the poor whilst attempting to balance the nations books on the backs of the poor, the
low paid and the vulnerable whilst featherbedding the rich and wealthy.
Tories speak
of tough decisions being made yet these so called tough decisions never affect
their own circumstances. Persecuting the poor is never tough for a Tory, it is
very easy for them. It is their raison d’etre.
We saw the
true Osborne this week. We saw the politically expedient Osborne, the
opportunist Osborne, the ambitious Osborne. I daresay that he has already drawn
up a shady plan of reclaiming the money he was supposed to be ‘saving ‘. So it will be nothing more than a short reprieve for the 3 million families currently trying to survive on low wages.
The Show’s Over Jezza.
Current Labour
leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was a principled and honest politician who had opinions
and views that he stuck to. That is why he is unsuitable to lead a major
political party and should now stand down. In today’s world, principles,
values, honesty and a moral code are anathema to the world of politics. Hence
why we currently have a puffed up, haughty and vain former PR man currently
holding the once prestigious position of Prime Minister of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.
I don’t
think Jeremy Corbyn wants to be Prime Minister and it doesn't matter if he does because he never will be. I don’t think he ever really wanted to be
leader of the Labour party, so he might as well end the agony and return to the back benches where he can maintain his integrity.
The horizon of British politics is much to vast for the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and Livingstone, and if they really cared about the interests of the people they purport to stand up for, they would stand aside.
It was always going to be difficult with Jeremy as your Christian name anyway.
The horizon of British politics is much to vast for the likes of Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and Livingstone, and if they really cared about the interests of the people they purport to stand up for, they would stand aside.
It was always going to be difficult with Jeremy as your Christian name anyway.
Grant Schapps.
Definition: The personification and embodiment of the 21st century Tory.
Mark Clarke.
Definition:
Ditto.
“never travel with a clever camel”.
(Benedict Allen, explorer)