George Galloway Talks More Sense On Syria Than Anyone Else. Where Is A Credible British Leader?
On this morning’s BBC politics-fest the most credible views on Syria I heard were from George Galloway. He was balanced, intelligent, rational and focused on the issue rather than his personal advancement.
Corbyn is a pacifist, whatever he says and that is an untenable position for a leader. I agree with him about the futility of bombing in Syria and that it will create rather than solve problems for us at home in the UK. However, I think he is incredible and incompetent. His confusion about the use of deadly force against marauding terrorists was unforgiveable. He won’t last much longer.
Michael Fallon is a bumptious, Tory fool, better suited to life as a provincial solicitor than as defence minister. Dr Liam Fox would be more use caring for patients than as a warmongering, hard right authoritarian disguised as a friendly GP. Cameron is a liar about there being 70,000 soldiers on the ground ready to support action against Daesh/ISIS, just like Blair was a liar about Saddam Hussein able to launch a WMD attack in 45 minutes. I’m afraid I think his principal motivation is that he wants to be at the ‘top table’ with Obama and Hollande and he feels left out. It’s a pathetic reason but I fear it’s true. It’s his personal prestige he’s most concerned about.
I can see no argument at all that bombing in Syria will make us safer, the reverse is the truth. The story about British forces having greater precision bombing capability with our Brimstone missiles is propaganda. I believe that the US, France, Russia and all modern military powers have at least equivalent if not better capability.
The most convincing argument I can see for bombing in Syria is that our ally, France, has asked for our assistance. I would be more ready to support such action if we were prepared to do the job properly and that means putting in our own ground forces.
I don’t want war but Daesh/ISIS is a evil ideology just like Nazism and we need to destroy it. I think we need to put a substantial force of highly trained professional soldiers on the ground and expect that we will take many casualties but that we will root out the terrorists house by house, room by room until the job is properly done and that includes removing Assad. Thereafter, we need to be ready to stay there for at least a decade until civil society is restored. This is why we have a military and if we don’t use it as necessary then why do we bother?
I am more convinced every day that the election result this year was a disaster for Britain. Cameron is an oily, self-serving creep with no integrity, no backbone and interested only in advancing his own interests. The Tory frontbench is composed mainly of toady yes men (and women) who fail to achieve the intellectual and moral qualities that we should expect from ministers. Personally I blame the Tory dominated press and all those weak, flip flopping voters who turned on the Liberal Democrats. Another coalition would have set Britain on the right course. That we now have a government with a mandate from just 24% of the electorate is absolute proof that British democracy has failed.
I fear that the outcome of all this will be more half measures. Then there will be another terrorist outrage, quite probably in the UK, possibly even in America. Then we’ll have more handwringing and the endless cycle of political posturing with no one having the courage to act will resume.
We have no moral justification for our conduct in the Middle East when we support Israel which is the most dangerous terrorist state, responsible for creating much of the hatred amongst followers of Islam and perpetrator of outrages every bit as heinous as Assad, Daesh/ISIS, Al Quaeda, Hussein or Gaddafi.
Let’s either do the job properly or let’s get out of the Middle East entirely.