This week on David Cameron’s crusade to fulfil his somewhat sordid desire to become the Iron Lady that this country deserves: matters turn away from the Tories often criticised domestic affairs and become international. In the wake of the largest migrant crisis since WW2 and the abhorrent terror attacks in Paris (and across the globe), our wise and benevolent Prime Minister has decided that we must respond with Force.
Whether this is a knee jerk and emotional reaction to a tragedy, or a ploy dictated by international prestige and the Russian backing of Assad, remains to be seen. But the real issue here is not the motivation, but rather the results of those actions. The only result being: more suffering, and more death.
It is difficult to judge the Syrian situation without reference or consideration of both Iraq and Afghanistan, so fresh in memory and so lacking in catharsis. The conflicts have their differences of course, and for now it would seem that Cameron is sated simply with adding British air power into the mix, without commitments to ‘boots on the ground’. What is somewhat confusing about this decision, though I agree it would be a foolish waste of human life in and of itself, is that Cameron appears to believe that we can achieve a more successful outcome through committing even less than we did before.
Concerns have been raised over how territory will be taken from Daesh (Islamic State) forces in the wake of air strikes, which apparently is the responsibility of the rebel groups such as the Free Syrian Army. The very same rebels also under attack from Russia’s bombing campaign. Both Germany and the United States seem intent on providing troops for a ground offensive, so it is difficult to see how our relatively meagre air force will contribute in any meaningful way to the situation, without accidentally shooting down Russian combat aircraft and provoking an international incident. I’m looking at you, Turkey. Perhaps the idea is to share the cost, or to save face on the international stage, but it is a futile gesture; and not one that speaks well of Britain.
“Cameron seems far too wrapped up in his own little world view, dictated by the insulation of upper-class institutions and his fetishisation of Margaret Thatcher”
It is a bizarre thing, to wake up and read that the strongest proponent for not blowing people up is a radical terrorist sympathiser. In a nation governed by a man who would rather make jokes than address serious issues, fuelled by a media system intent on defaming the opposition at every opportunity; I fear we have reached a crisis point. Morality and severity of politics struggles to draw breath, drowning in a sea of political games, notions of legacy, and accusations.
It is only a man with no concern for human life, who so readily and forcibly pushes for a bombing campaign on a country already ravaged by war, who will perpetuate the refugee crisis whilst turning those in need away. Who refuses to learn from past mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. And who has the blind audacity to label proponents of peace as sympathisers of the very terrorists created by the western military escapades of the past. Cameron seems far too wrapped up in his own little world view, dictated by the insulation of upper-class institutions and his fetishisation of Margaret Thatcher, war glory and all, and his need to emulate her legacy. Because of this, he doesn’t see the wider issue.
Committing to this bombing campaign will do nothing to benefit Syria, nothing to benefit its people, it will do nothing but drive people to Europe, or into the arms of the terrorists themselves. David Cameron will have innocent blood on his hands, and he might even notice when Daesh turns from France to Britain.
Image: Allsdare Hickson via flickr