Coming Soon: The Slaughter of the Innocents.

Prime Minister David Cameron has come up with a cunning plan to solve the Syrian crisis, as well as neutralising Islamic State. His solution is to bomb Isis. Now, you may believe this is the work of a genius, until you realise that for the past 18 months, the USA, French and Canadian air forces, along with the recent addition of the Russian and Turkish air forces, have been doing exactly that with little success.

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 21^st 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.

Grant Schapps.
Definition: The personification and embodiment of the 21^st century Tory.

Mark Clarke.

Definition: Ditto.

 

 “never travel with a clever camel”.

(Benedict Allen, explorer)