Saturday, 23 August 2014

Kermits can't change course - we can

Poor Msr Hollande is a man beset by problems of France's own making, each of which he seeks to blame on another nation. France's sclerotic economy is dragging down the Eurozone; it's the fault of the Germans. She can't apply sanctions against Russia by cancelling their new ships; this is the fault of the US. And her loss of all influence in Syria, since the 1920s a French zone of influence, is the fault of perfidious Albion. In fact, he says, by not supporting ISIS in overthrowing Assad we've actually made them stronger. It takes either powerful non-prescription drugs or Gallic hubris to believe something like that. 

In fact, Parliament's decision on Syria was one of the few things MPs can pride themselves on - and for which we can be proud of our MPs. Blocking Cameron's little adventure also stopped both the USA and France in their tracks. Hollande can't forgive us. He's burnt his boats with Assad, and it will take a new French president to salvage some sort of useful relationship. A stubborn, silly little socialist, pompous as a little bladder of flatus, he can't change course. And for us? Christopher Meyer sums it up neatly in the Telegraph
At this time and at this place in history, our national interest lies in stability and order, not in the pursuit of the last wisps of the Arab Spring. Yet, nor is it in our national interest that Isil should establish a caliphate athwart Syria and Iraq, a springboard for terrorism around the world and the unravelling of the frontiers of the Middle East. It follows, therefore, that we must support, by force where necessary, the integrity of Syria and Iraq, with regional allies such as Turkey and, yes, Iran and Russia. This, in turn, means that we have to stop working for the overthrow of President Assad and the Alawite ascendancy in Damascus.
I've always had the greatest regard for Willie Hague's intellect, a sharp contrast to the Prime Minister's obtuseness. Can the reason that Hague is no longer at the FO be that he supported Meyer's view, in opposition to his boss? If so, this would also explain Hague's needling provocation of the PM by failing to act over Bercow's new catering manager Commons Clerk, over which Peter Oborne expressed Cameron's anger

Cameron should take a lesson from Hollande's precarious situation on the dangers of not changing course. COLREGS require skippers to take all necessary action to avoid collision and ensure safety - 'standing on' is not a right, there are no rights; just responsibilities. And we don't care about Cameron's loss of face - he's expendable, the UK isn't. 


Restoring Britain said...

Strange that Hollande, a socialist could not learn from his own countries revolution a history lesson that would have stood him well in his approach to this one in Syria. It's one that seems to be true of so many revolutions.

He should have kept a watchful eye out for background players in the first popular uprising in Syria. History seems to show a lot of revolutions have two waves. The first is the popular uprising on enslaved populations. However there have often been more dangerous and darker players waiting in the wings to bring their own plans to the fore once chaos starts to reign.

Sackerson said...

"... he's expendable, the UK isn't."

I agreed with you all the way, up to this last point. I am beginning to feel that Cameron is at the stage that Tony Blair was in his latter Premiership: looking over our shoulder at the next stage of his life. Barging on with his holiday arrangements, not recalling Parliament... losing interest, as seemingly inevitably he's going to lose the next General Election, and bluff, blundering old Boris genially sharpening the knife. Cameron should care - he's on the gravy train for life after leaving the UK to head for the rocks, like Lord Jim.

Nick Drew said...

Meyer is right about regional alliance with Turkey (obvious) "and, yes, Iran and Russia", Assad-backers both and with vital interests at stake.

I hold no brief for either and consider Russia a country that will always be alone and aloof. But they can also be an ally.

I note also that China is onside: they should be enlisted too.

the frogs can do whatever they must: they are unlikely to be of much use under the current management

DeeDee99 said...

I agree with Sackerson.

Cameron knows he's on the way out and is in "end of term" mode.

Any serious work has been done; now he's just going through the motions and having a bit of fun until school's out.

I reckon he'll get a senior position in the Charity Quango section of global government.

Anonymous said...

"Parliament's decision on Syria was one of the few things MPs can pride themselves on" -
Really? My memory is of parliament being up for involvement but being so incompetent that some MPs were unable to turn up to vote, and that it was by accident that we were not involved in the Syrian civil war. For god's sake don't recall parliament.

Anonymous said...

Joined up thinking? We, here in the west don't do any thinking - period.

After a litany of bollocks dropped in the middle east, recall the carve up of Palestine and how the Arabs were unceremoniously dispossessed, Iran and installing the Shah a CIA-UK backed coup, 1979 we backed Saddam and through the war against Iran, played politics in the Levant and how Beirut was blitz alley all through the 80's the west didn't know whether to stick or twist. Eventually Syria moved in and Hezbollah dominated the Beqaa and south and Sunni loonies elsewhere [Tripoli and Beirut] and everybody [Britain, Israel, USA, Russia] stuck their oar in. Russia-France kept meddling and Syria always was, so the frogs thought - part of their sphere - wot a fucking laugh.

Into that happy mix, the Iraq was of 1991 and then the sequel.

Bush's neo-cons in the main caused this ME-Iraq-Syria clusterfuck.

Powell [colon], the hawks in the Pentagon and messers Cheney [defence and Haliburton or should that be the other ways around?] and Rumsfeld [car salesman and sometimes vice Pres].

Iraq and Saddam Hussain, unfinished business and boy did they leave it unbloodyfinished.

Disbanding the Iraqi army and the Baahtist apparatus of state was the biggest blunder, against FO advice they [Cheney, Rumsfeld] did it anyway.
What happened, well the country splintered and mayhem ensued, a direct consequence is the ISIS insurgency - the Sunni tribes of Anbar, Najaf, Karbala, Ninevah joined up with ISIS and gave the Iraqi army a shock lesson in guerrilla tactics and urban warfare.
It must also be remembered that, it was the Americans realization that paying these same Sunni tribesmen enabled the US forces to subdue the 2003 post war insurgency where out of nothing the British/US invasion had so stupidly allowed to happen - in they poured [Al qaeda foreign mercenaries from all over the lands of the RoP].
Incoming, from Saudi, Iran, and particularly Syria - which because of this failed AngloUS disastrous adventure, that Iraq was so destabilized, unitended but nevertheless a tragedy which to a great extent could have been avoided through logical planning and some sang-froid, attention to detail and REALPOLITIK - FFS.
I'll throw in another, the law of unintended consequences, thanks to the maniacs driving the green agenda, growning food crops to be used in the distillation of 'biofuel' ie ethanol. Nuts of the green lunacy, both the EU and US spend hundreds of millions in subsidies encouraging farmers to turn over their fields from growing food to biofuel cropping.
The consequent dearth of corn and cereal-grains caused a spike in world commodity prices for basic foodstuffs. Thus did all that, cause people on the lowest incomes not inconsiderable pain of course it caused hunger all over the Sahel, Maghreb and middle east - that was no Arab spring - they were bloody food riots - go fucking figure.

Western government policy is the middle east's enemy and the ensuing fall out, as they seek to fix what they broke in the first place. It is, small wonder that, even some Good Arabs their fuqwit leaders and ISIS et al all hate us.