Cameron’s declared bombing aims in Syria are ridiculously vain

We have all learnt that Cameron routinely makes up policy on the hoof, but he has really outdone himself by his explanation of his case for bombing Syria.   First of all as he states it, his military case is the defeat of ISIS.   This is risible since the contribution that he is planning for Britain to make to that end would be marginal to the point of invisibility.   It would not only be wholly ineffective, it would also have the perverse effect of making the streets of Britain less safe as ISIS or its affiliates sought to take revenge.   But most important of all, it is easy to enter a war by some vainglorious posturing as Cameron is intending, but very difficult to exit a war as Iraq and Afghanistan make all too clear.   There is the other inconvenient problem for Cameron that if Jeremy Corbyn wins on Saturday, his chances of winning a Commons vote are far from certain.

Cameron’s second declared goal is the political objective of strengthening the Iraqi government.   This is equally fanciful thinking.   UK participation in a few bombing raids in Syria will not have the slightest impact in achieving a more secure government in Iraq.   It is a cliche’ that everyone understands that no war can be won or country saved from defeat by bombing from the air, only by boots on the ground.   The protection of Baghdad is entirely a matter of the resolution and discipline of the Iraqi army, reinforced as it already is by heavy weaponry supplied by the West.   The truth is that adding a few UK bombing sorties in Syria is far more likely to spur extra recruitment for ISIS/al-Qaeda  than consolidate the government in Iraq.

Cameron’s third goal is to help to lead a new diplomatic initiative in Syria which with the support of Russia and China would install a government of national unity in Damascus.   This again is a preposterously bloated ambition.   The idea that Russia or China will take any notice of Britain’s minuscule participation in Syria in modifying or reversing their deeply held positions on the Middle East is again absurd.   The proposal also rather arrogantly dismisses the far more important role of the US, EU and UN which are bound to be the key players in any wider initiative alongside not only Russia and China, but also the regional powers of Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.   Who does Cameron think he is?


4 thoughts on “Cameron’s declared bombing aims in Syria are ridiculously vain

  1. Indeed Cameron will always take the war route or imply someone was guilty of a crime and have him or her killed

    The war started because Blair lacked detachment from bush back in 2003 what was a simple task to remove one man ended up killing millions of innocent people with millions and to this day are on the move to get out from the middle east

    Afghanistan/Libya/Iran/Iraq/ Tunisia/Egypt/ Syria/Israeli–Palestinian all need very careful handling and in reality they don’t need the likes of David Cameron to have to deal with as he has no personal knowledge of how these cultures work or indeed how there countries operate as he’s never been there with their people to have even asked them

    a very sad state of affairs if ever their was one
    My view is the middle east is finished and also parts of Africa as it’s not possible to keep these countries going with the likes of David Cameron as the go between as at best he’s not at all reliable and I think that’s the way the world leaders think of him a good speaker and that’s all

    I hope that Jeremy corbyn when he becomes the labour leader will expose Cameron’s judgement and take the labour party forward

    The world is a very dangerous place today and all David Cameron does with his style of leadership is to just make matters worse

  2. This is the really scary bit:
    “It would not only be wholly ineffective, it would also have the perverse effect of making the streets of Britain less safe as ISIS or its affiliates sought to take revenge. ”

    I’ve a feeling that since Churchill and Thatcher have gone down in history as great PMs in time of war, Blair wanted to do the same and now so does Cameron. However the problems in the Middle East are far more complicated than in these past conflicts and it should not be up to us to get involved. That’s what the UN was established to do.

    I like Jeremy Corbyn’s stance, which is to stop arms supplies to these countries, especially as many of these are supplied by us, so this is an area where we could have some influence.

    Cameron and others are also trying to make out that had Ed Miliband not stopped them from bombing Syria then ISIS would not have become so powerful and there wouldn’t now be these problems there. I doubt very much that this is the case; probably just another way of criticizing Jeremy’s more peaceful ideas.

    So, I think we should leave it to the UN and do what we can to stop arms sales to the area.

    I wonder: if Blair hadn’t got us involved in wars, would we still have a problem with terrorists here in the UK?

  3. Hum the un hou joking puppet of america yet cams bomb more will come hes not telling the truth again just another yanky puppet but a dangerous one stop the bombing

  4. Five and a half years of austerity! Cuts! More cuts!! Sick & disabled people being passed fit then dying within weeks, having their money stopped. Yet suddenly there is money available for a war to invade and kill innocent people in the Middle East. Britain should not get involved in any more Arab wars, it is none of our business. Never was, never will be.

  5. I agree with everyting that Mr Meacher has said.

    Bombing Middle East Countries has proven not to make those countries more stable and more democratic – quite the reverse.

    I think that David Cameron’s proposal to “lead” an “initiative” with Russia and China in Syria to effectively create Regime change is deisgned to shift the blame to Russia and China when Russia and China decide not to help destabilise Syria even further by ousting Assad – which was the objective of wishing to Bomb Syria before ISIS was regarded as such a problem.

    The objective is the same – get rid of Assad and install a Western Friendly Government – one that won’t be as friendly to the Russians and Chinese, and one thta will need the support of the West to survive – thereby making that new Syrian Regime dependent on the West and therefore easily influenced by the West – a proxy Western Government in Syria.

    Unfortunately the “Whatever it takes” attitude has taken hold in the UK and the US – does not matter how many new Terrorist Groups are created, how many lives are destroyed, how many Migrants move towards European Countries for refuse, SO LONG AS THE KEY GOAL IS ACHIEVED – OUST ASSAD and destroy Syria.

    David Cameron’s Libyan disaster (aided by William Hague’s rhetoric) was not totally Cameron’s Idea – it was led by the needs of NATO and the United States. France also participated in destroying Libya – maybe becasue the EURO was under threat by Gadaffi as he threatened to refuse payment for Oil in EUROs – only Gold. And so a wealthy Libya was turned into lawless chaos – cheered on by David Cameron – who looked forward to a free and democratic Libya – an illusion formed from blissful ignorance. And now Cameron can’t see the link between War and Chaos and the migrant crisis moving towards all of Europe.

    Meanwhile – Arms manufacturer’s are having a Bonanza as fear and chaos brings in the weapons orders.

  6. I still don’t quite understand how David Cameron can state that Jeremy Corbyn puts at risk the National Security of the UK.

    If we had done things to follow Jeremy Corbyn’s advice, we would not have destroyed Iraq, Libya or Syria. The Middle East would be far more stable and there would not be a migrant crisis. chances are, Israel may not have bombed Gaza – which would have saved another 2000 lives. this would have meant that less middle eastern people would hate us as their families would still be alive and well, and so our National Security would have improved under a Corbyn led Government. The money that we would have saved on bombing and destroying all these countries would have gone into the economy – perhaps into the NHS. We woldn’t have the fiasco of having Surrey Police warn that they need to have private companies invest in them by providing Police Cars becasue there’s not enough public money – so Police are driving around in patrol vehicles with Private Business Advertising on the side of their cars. Another advantage of a Corbyn led Government would be that the recession would be over as Corbyn’s view of the failure of Austerity matches that of many top rank Econmists and vocal Capitalists.

    The problem of the UK is that we have been led by people who don’t know what thye are doing – or if they do – they don’t give a damn about the collateral damage. I would include: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg in that statement.

  7. Hum monies going into the nhs dont make me laugh they destroying the nhs starving it of nurses doctors who take new jobs with atos crapita maximus and the rest its starving the nhs so it can say there we told you so up for sale were unum and the like will sell you a policy for uour stay in that private hospital which it has a stake in nice
    but monies they steal every day off the peasants we pay through the nose yet yhey pay hardly a morsel offshore accounts yes we got the money but they steal it all legal like linning their own pockets its only the peasants suffering the austerity part jeff3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *