It's it difficult to believe the myopic view of UK politicians. After a quite disastrous foray into Iraq which ended with the UK being chased out of Basra and shia militia's taking over and a soon to be followed similar example in Helmand and Afghanistan.
Years of on the ground work and an initial invasion have yielded no real strategic success. In Iraq there is at least a vestige of democracy and maybe once Kurdistan separates the Country can begin to focus and move forward. It is an improvement on Saddam but with a very high blood price.
In Afghanistan the Taliban look poised to re-take the Country in next few years. The blood and treasure expended will be for nothing.
Now we have Syria, with a terrible civil war stretching into its 3rd years with the Country bitterly divided. Most of the Arab world supports the rebels and with Iran and Hezbollah, as well as Russia on the other side. Qatar and other arab states have provided plenty of arms to the rebels.
Why on earth should the UK get involved? We have not real way to end the war and no appetite for a ground war. Even the air campaign in Libya which seemed so successful has left a bitter country to be ruled by various militia's of one kind or another.
We all bemoan defence cuts, but at a time when our defence spending is falling and our ability to effectively use hard power can be questioned with the Islamic region in the Middle East, why on earth are our ministers and leaders so keen to gets us involved. I have no answer, it is bewildering to me for people who should know better and have expended enough of our soldiers lives in recent times to learn all the answers they need for this question.
Follow the money!
ReplyDeleteHow many Ministers/MPs have links to defence companies etc ...? No matter if they're buried in a trust fund or offshore.
To them it's not blood money but making sure they have a suitable standard of living once the troughing is over.
There is a theory (foil hat issued please) that the great game is the opening up of the Central Asian oilfields. Hence Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.
ReplyDeleteThe Taliban were against this so had to be removed etc...(Hat on again)
The pipeline is supposed to go North-South but (hat on again) but there is the possibility of East-West was through Iraq and Syria. So Syria needs to be more friendly to the west and less friendly to competing Russian interests.
As I said its all foil hat stuff but maybe....
Perhaps Nick may be able to comment.
oh, my only comment is that no-one in their right minds reckons a trans-continental pipeline through dodgy territory to be a secure form of energy
ReplyDeletea more static and vulnerable target it is hard to imagine
you have either bought off the entire host nation (and that means all of them, not just 'most of them but not the Kurds') or you've got yourself a maintenance contract for life
@ Nick Drew
ReplyDeleteCue KBR turning up?
How can this
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
There is a theory (foil hat issued please) that the great game is the opening up of the Central Asian oilfields. Hence Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. "
Be true? We will soon have fracking which will solve all our needs.
I vote for ignorance, they really believe that the FSA are western liberals.
@Anon 8.47 - 'tin foil hat' means nothing look at the facts. There is no doubt that power games are being played. Pretending otherwise and all are 'conspiracy theories' does a disservice to all our intellects, panders to groupthink and looks to close down debate. The pipeline appears to be the desire for influence made solid, no matter if it is a good idea, or even becomes fact.
ReplyDeleteL Fairfax - incompetance and stupidity maybe but I think our glorious leaders are far from ignorant. All the guff about gas from Obumma/Vague shows they are playing games.
The US/UK it appears are certainly not acting in any national interest, whose interest it is certainly not clear.
We should adopt the completely opposite strategy ie withdrawing from any conflict and where possible confiscating weapons if they should cross the borders of Syria. The best strategy would be to assist the neighbouring countries to support the refugees. Let all the various factions fight it out and leave them to it. War is not the answer; I would have thought we might have learnt this lesson by now.
ReplyDeleteThe pipeline theory IS tin foil hatter of the highest order. Even sane people here believe it. Maybe it was in a Bond film.
ReplyDeleteAs ND says why would anyone set up a static, 1,000 mile long target, through hostile territory?
It would be necessary to hold and police and operate any country that wasn't an ally, and equip those that were with all the latest tech to ensure the pipeline wasn't broken.
And if it was..by say, 20 Taliban with RPG-7's , that cost a few hundred $ each, then the oil to the west stops.
Its a fantasy. And the facts only fit if the entire 9/11 is reverse engineered to make the USA the aggressor {which it wasn't - 9/11 was an attack on, not by the USA.}
or maybe the US and USSR, rather than being implacable enemies during the 1980's height of the cold war, were in fact Build-a-bearing up a new world order where the USSR would set up Afghanistan for a later takeover by the CIA.
Its about as credible as the attack on the USS Stark being carried out by neither Israel nor Iran , but flying saucers.
Grow up!
I too shall pop my 'tin foil hat' on - rather fetching I think, a mosaic of colours hewn from a Quality Street tin.
ReplyDeleteIf John McCain & our own Neo-Cons want to engage then it's largely a matter of Iran. Syria has nothing to do with anything other than why waste a good crisis.
There's a massive movement (Liam Fox got largely killed over it) about the Dogs of War being let loose upon the Iranians for reasons of simple race, religion, territorial forment - that the end game has always been Iran, that nuclear weapons have become the currency, that sooner or later there's gonna be a US led intervention into Iran and it may as well be conducted through the proxy of the religious 'rebel' nutters than through any other means.
It's opportunistic, it's nieve but...but..if something's inevitable then when is a good time to realise that inevitability?
Ah, fun and games - the show that never ends!!
Why would we want to be involved in a Syrian war? Because the Americans always want to share the opprobrium
ReplyDeleteBlair became obscenely rich after having committed the British army in Iraq, despite the army being inadequate and ill-armed resulting in defeat and bail out by the Americans.
Why do we get involved? Because we are owned by America. Our nuclear deterrent depends totally on the Americans . Our security services depend absolutely on the Americans, and without them we are impotent. In return I have no doubt we are obliged to support the USA in every madcap military adventure.
"Blair became obscenely rich after having committed the British army in Iraq, despite the army being inadequate and ill-armed resulting in defeat and bail out by the Americans."
ReplyDeleteOh good Cameron can become obscenely rich as well!
Has he promised to share this with Hague or is Hague taking drugs?
The thing is Dtp, if Iran is the endgame, why did the US invade Iraq?
ReplyDeleteA totally unnecessary step. And Afghanistan a doubly unnecessary one.
If the US state department had said to Saddam, "Hey, let us use your bases and roads and ports and we'll take out your mortal enemies for you. The ones that you spent a decade fighting .. And if you can let us have , say , 10,000 troops for front line infantry casualties, that'll be swell."
He might have said yes.
At the very least if the US had said "We're taking out Iran, so butt out . Here's $10bn. And you'd better take it or you'll be next."
Anyone think old beret head wouldn't have thought that a trade he couldn't refuse?
The only reason that even begins to look credible for why the US chose Iraq over Iran if Iran was the target seems to be George W really did just point blindly at a map of the gulf and say "Them's the bad guys..take 'em out Don." .
Who was it said of the Iraq-Iran War, "Pity they can't both lose"? That's the spirit: keep out.
ReplyDelete@BQ - fair points all but why not both? Both at the same time would have just opened the floodgates of modern day imperialism but 20 years apart, deals made, bribes paid. Iraq had more unrealised oil potential than Iran in terms of infrastructure to destroy so start with Iraq - eliminate the Baathists and consequently destabilise Syria. But that didn't happen - they screwed it. They forgot about religion - they thought it could just be monetised and would be a cake walk.
ReplyDeleteI dunno - it all just seems extremely convenient is all.
interesting comment about US UK, as said, to follow this path they are clearly not acting in national self interests.
ReplyDeleteIt is intersting, although pure tin hat territory, to speculate as to why.
My guess is they are really worried about Hezbollah getting hold of WMD as they are mad enough to try to use it on Israel.
"My guess is they are really worried about Hezbollah getting hold of WMD as they are mad enough to try to use it on Israel." Keep out of that too. Not our business.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion on why the US went into iraq was
ReplyDelete(a) GWB wanted to finish the job he thought his dad chickened out of
(b) if he went into Iran, that would be portrayed as an attack on the whole of Islam
On why we are thinking about doing something about Syria - well we have a defence budget - and we must spend it on something.
Parkinsons Law!
Quite simply war abroad is far easier and satisfying to deal with than economic and social problems at home.
ReplyDeleteSo said Mark Anthony.
... not to mention the immense pressure brought to bear by internet footage these days.
ReplyDeleteAnd talking of pipelines, was there not also talk a couple of years back of vast deposits of rare metals in the north of the country? Rivalling those held by China, ergo ripe for plundering by the West?
ReplyDeleteOr did I make that up.
Simple explanation, Mossad have info which would send Hague to jail and have told him they'll release it or else.
ReplyDeleteAnon8.08
ReplyDeleteOh you mean Hague and his various friendships that might not go down with the doughty Yorkshire folk??
really this is true and very interesting .."" Years of on the ground work and an initial invasion have yielded no real strategic success. In Iraq there is at least a vestige of democracy and maybe once Kurdistan separates the Country can begin to focus and move forward. It is an improvement on Saddam but with a very high blood price.""
ReplyDelete""Why on earth should the UK get involved? We have not real way to end the war and no appetite for a ground war. Even the air campaign in Libya which seemed so successful has left a bitter country to be ruled by various militia's of one kind or another.""..............
ReplyDeletethis is one of the great and very interesting articles that i read .......... i find it useful and perfect because it can solve so many issues that happen to us...... when i read it i get the message and i know the key way that will provide me with good solution ..... so thanks so much for this article is very great ...... and very interesting ..... to share it with us is like a honor from you ........thanks a lot ...
ReplyDeletevery interesting.....c'est l'une des grandes et très intéressant articles que j'ai lu .......... Je trouve qu'il est utile et parfait, car il peut résoudre tant de problèmes qui nous arrivent ...... quand je lis, je reçois le message et je sais que l'élément clé qui va me donner une bonne solution ..... donc merci beaucoup pour cet article est très grand ...... et très intéressant ..... à partager avec nous, c'est comme un honneur de vous ........ merci beaucoup ...
ReplyDeletereally this article is very good and very interesting ..... so this post is very nice and amazing ...... as all the time we can find interesting ideas on this great word ..... so as a way that can make us to follow any website is the important of the topics that represent to the readers and the visitors........ so thanks so much for sharing it with us.....
ReplyDelete