I have just woken up to find out we have approved more bombings on Syrian lands or what’s left of it. I might as well stay in bed. Wtf it’s like I went to sleep last night in 2015 & woke up in 2003 (bombing Iraq over THAT weapon of mass destruction, which spawned isis/daesh or whatever they are called). Please bare with me as this is going to be a long one because it seems our government(s) have not learnt lessons from that.
Cameron’s case in the commons for dropping bombs on Syria hardly constitutes “going to war” emerges from two previous decisions. The first was the invasion of Iraq and the failure to install stability and democracy in the aftermath. American and British policy at the time contributed directly to the rise of Islamic State, by disbanding the Republican Guard and then humiliating the Sunni population. That guard now supplies isis with the effective core of its army, the same troops who under Saddam would have kept isis ruthlessly in check.
The second decision was last year to join a raggle-taggle coalition of the half-willing in bombing
isis targets in northern Iraq. The strongest part of Cameron’s argument was that the Commons overwhelmingly backed that coalition. Now the targets had spread into Syria it made no sense to stop at the border. Britain was already supplying intelligence and drone bombing in Syria.
Cameron yesterday point-blank refused to accept the logic of what he claims to be doing, which is “defeating isis”. Britain will bomb isis in Syria, but will not support the only factor that EVERY MILITARY EXPERT agrees can make such bombing effective. That is to be in support of a specific ground offensive over the territory bombed.
Our Joint Intelligence Committee claims to have mustered an army of “70,000 moderates … based on detailed analysis updated daily. The attempt of the deputy chief of the defence staff, General Messenger, to substantiate that army before the Commons defence committee on Tuesday was embarrassing. The phantom army sounds like another “dodgy dossier” from the same people that brought us Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Sources say the more realistic figure is 15, 000 moderate Syrians & Kurdish fighters willing to cover the ground offensive when the air strikes have done their job.
Speaker after speaker in the Commons yesterday asked how bombing Syria would make OUR STREETS IN THE UK ONE JOT SAFER & he couldn’t answer that.
Cameron has been captivated, like so many prime ministers before him, by the glamour of the air lobby
The role of airstrikes in modern war has barely advanced since the days of Bomber Harris. Bombs destroy buildings and equipment and kill people. They cannot take or hold territory. They cannot secure victory, let alone peace and prosperity, I have not heard a compelling exit strategy for this new offensive other than ‘there will be A TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT 6 MONTHS FROM NOW & FULL ELECTIONS IN 18 MONTHS’ so please keep June 3rd 2016 in mind to check if there’s a Syrian transitional government in place.
We are going to displace more people from their homes and create more refugees WHICH WE REFUSE TO TAKE IN REMEMBER?
Terrorist attacks on our soil and in Europe are mostly done by home grown nutters with indigenous passports so why don’t we concentrate our efforts in eliminating that, that I perceive to be a legitimate threat to our way of life? Just asking the question, just my opinion.
Sorry it’s a long one but sometimes I think some on social media and wherever don’t really know what the cause and effect means, in this case seeing recent history repeat itself, I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Stay living people