Sunday, 6 September 2015

Cameron about to back the wrong horse again

Poor David Cameron. With Osborne doing a splendid job running the United Kingdom, leaving Dave just to do the foreign policy stuff, he should by rights get things right at least half the time even, as seems the case, he has absolutely no idea what he's doing. A lame-duck PM, with his mind more on Cornish beaches and seafood suppers than the negotiating table, Cameron has the knack of backing the wrong horse every time

Now he wants to join again with the fanatical Wahhabist Sunni savages from Saudi and the gulf states against Assad of Syria, the man who led a tolerant, multi-faith Syria protective of its substantial Christian minorities, whatever his other faults. But Dave has been slapped down before, the last time he tried to bat for the Saudi despots. So this time he's proposing we fight ISIS and Assad at the same time. Wizard wheeze, eh chaps? Parliament will never see it. 

Cameron would be well-advised to heed the advice of Crispin Blunt, writing in the Telegraph today. We need to sit around a table with Russia and Saudi both present, and agree a solution for Syria that retains a secular Ba'athist core state with religious freedom and protection for Christians and other minorities, albeit one giving Russia a Mediterranean port. The answer to the impotence in the Med of the Royal Navy is greater defence spending, not handing Syria to the arab fanatics.  

17 comments:

G. Tingey said...

At least a half-sensible solution ....
Alternatively, give Assad a free pass, immunity from prosecution & put Syria under "mandate" ... Basically anything to utterly crush Da'esh, a.s.a.p.
You are correct, though, in that however unpleasant & murderous a dictator Putin is ( & he is ) "we" need to have him "on-side" for this.
Unfortunately, all of this is beginning to sound familiar, as in 1930's familiar.

DeeDee99 said...

Agreed.

Sometimes "the Devil you know" is better than the Devil you don't. That has proven to be the case with ISIS.

Saudi Arabia is also a Devil we know. And I believe Assad is by far the preferable option than encouraging the spread of the evil Muslim fanatics of Saudi Arabia.

We should support Assad and destroy ISIS. Then Assad must be controlled to ensure that he runs a tolerant, multi-faith country which doesn't rule by violence and fear.

Cameron doesn't reach any decisions on his own: he's simply following the Orders from America and the Global Elite who decided some time ago that the Dictators of North Africa and the near Middle East had to be cleared out before democracy would flourish.

What they fail to understand is that these countries will never be real, western-style democracies. They are tribal regions that can only be contained, not forced into nations and a political system that has no historic base in their region.

Mr Ecks said...


Camorgueron wants a war against Assad and against Assad's main enemies.

What a fucking genius--with him running the show D-Day would have seen two armadas in the English Channel passing each other in opposite directions.

And of course he now wants to import all the human fall-out here --just to achieve maximum damage to sense and civilisation.

He has in just six short years proved himself a worthy candidate, alongside Bliar and McSnot, for the worst Prime Minister of all time.

Anonymous said...

I think it's too strong to say that these countries will never be western-style democracies, but it will take a couple of generations to change this.

The reason is the way children are brought up. If their parents bring them up by showing that violence is the way to solve problems then they will carry that into their adult life and they will expect nothing less from their authority figures. This is why people from those areas are so much more inclined to interpersonal violence and so tolerant of harsh governments. It also accounts for the behaviour of past generations in the West; we've been there too.

A children's charity that I support in sub-Saharan Africa tells me that children are routinely beaten in schools if their marks are in the bottom half of the class in a subject, and that the children themselves accept this as good teaching.

The Pew surveys found a big difference in attitudes between Bosnian Muslims and Muslims in the middle east. The real problem is not Islam, it's lousy childrearing. Rwandans were Catholics and they were brutal to each other.

john cheshire said...

I think Mr Cameron will do whatever the muslim in the White House tells him to do.

Anonymous said...

The Daesh are the enemy, Putin could bring calm to this region with American backing and telling the KSA to thoroughly back off and NOW.

Assad, was starting to come round, in time in coordination with Moscow - Assad would have turned Syria into a secular state but one open to most. It is true, that, his Alaouite friends didn't quite see it that way but they could have been granted autonomy in their mountain fastness and we must not forget that, instability in Iraq - never helped Syria in the slightest.

Cameron, always worried me, his understanding of middle east politics and the massively turbulent undercurrents therein. was, is woeful to non existent. Remember though, he receives precious little information and all strategic thinking from the Arabists running the FCO - who are if anything and everything pro Sunni [KSA again] - they're no help and neither is that clown in the White House, nor are, the other lot in Paris-Brussels-Berlin.

And Dave his close team + Gideon are like fumble fingered children playing and bashing - with the C4 of WeltPolitik. TALK TO PUTIN Camoron - because this ex intelligence officer [and his operatives] PUTIN knows more about the middle east than you'll ever grasp.

Anonymous said...

One way to deal with ISIS might just be to recognise them. They get the rural parts of Syria and Anbar Province in Iraq. If they have a country to run, they may grow up a bit and be somewhat less inclined to kill and rape? The USSR and Mao's China were horrible countries and in both cases there were futile wars to try to prevent them from coming into being. Indochina ditto.

right_writes said...

The weird thing about weak leaders is that they tend to leave a great big mark in history...

The effective ones seem to fall into disrepute...

Lots of people criticise Churchill as being no good outside of wartime, and Thatch for destroying this community or that community...

But think about Asquith who destroyed the House of Lords, or Heath who put us into the EU and destroyed the nation, Blair who created the new lords and this current idiot, who (as you say), unfailingly backs the wrong horse and then lies about it.

Most of the others are weak and vacillating too, it is in the nature of reaching the top of our political system...

Major... urrrghh!

Anonymous said...

Fundamentally we're going to have to address the elephant in the room - our supposed allies the Saudi's are cunts.

They started Al-Queda which led to 9-11.

They started ISIS which has unleashed a darkness on the world almost without compare.

If we destroy ISIS, the Saudi's will simply start another movement of monsters.

English Pensioner said...

Our whole thinking is biased by the belief that dictators are bad and that all countries should have western style democracy which is good.
In practice, in many countries, a dictator is the only solution. These countries go back to the British and French colonial days when they were carved out by civil servants who drew straight lines on a map. They failed to take into account tribal boundaries, with the result that the largest tribe dominated. Even so there was relative peace, particularly in Syria until western countries started dabbling in their affairs. Assad kept the peace in Syria, other religions could live in peace there until the so-called Arab spring when the west gave the rebels active encouragement until they turned out to be more evil than Assad.
Western countries should have kept out; democracy as we understand it just won't work.

right_writes said...

@English Pensioner....

I would argue that indeed, so-called democracy has consistently been used against the interests of those who are democratically ruled.

It doesn't seem to matter what ordinary folk do, there are always a few extraordinary folk who make it their business to fuck us all over.

The USA has a wonderful written constitution, which has consistently been undermined since the day that it first appeared in print... as indeed has the document on which it was based, Magna Carta...

Ask a government type (lawyer... politician... civil servant) about that, and they will try to tell you that it is irrelevant...

Irrelevant my arse...

The problem is that not only have those types got most of the guns... They have managed to persuade those few of us that had one in the last twenty years to hand those over too.

Hopefully the "septics" won't be as credulous as we have been, and will hold out for long enough to make it count.

mikebravo said...

"They started Al-Queda which led to 9-11"

They may have paid the money by we and the septics did the training. Starting in Pakistan in the 70's with the jihad for Kashmir, through Afghanistan and then Bosnia. We have been using muslim psychopaths to overthrow governments we don't like for 60 years.

Cascadian said...

The premise that Putin even thinks about the UK when making his decisions is farcical, your foreign policy reach is close to zero. Even Blunt's article makes the point that you are now just a diplomatic talking shop, forever pursuing the PR policies of the camoron.

Need some examples-Ukraine, Basra, Afghanistan, Libya. UK is a minor bit player, forever relying on allies to cover it's inadequacies.

Give it up, concentrate on domestic issues and stop the seventy years of (managed) decline.

Budgie said...

Raedwald, I agree, but please don't talk about Cameron it sends my blood pressure up! Cameron or Corbyn ......... what have we done to deserve this?

Dr Evil said...

O M G a pretty sensible solution for a change. Can't see it ever happening, because it's well, er sensible.

Elby the Beserk said...

Correct, though four years too late. The lessons of Iraq should have shown us that when trouble started in Syria, it was Assad we should have backed. The last secular state in the ME (tho' well done Egypt for giving the vile MB pariah status), and a buffer between the crazies and us. And given that Assad's offences against yooman rights consisted of pulling toenails out of Islamists, well, who are we to say that is wrong - and he could have farmed it out to the Americans anyway. They're good at that sort of thing.

Syria, 2011 - secular, multi-faith, tolerant, a growing GDP, and fabulous education system (viz. the BBC series on the same, which showed a country full of kids wanting to learn. Contrast that with the UK), and a middle class professional class for the first time.

All gone. For ever.

Cuffleyburgers said...

Syria? we shouldn't have backed anybody. Let'em get on with it.

In every case intervention has been a disaster. Every single time.

And in fact each time it has been worse - and it is mainly the US to blame. Our clinging on to Bush's and then Obama's coat tails has been a ridiculous strategy.

Oh for some cold calculating cynical war making - the only type we should ever do.

In other words, Gulf I - ok, big oil interests. Afghanistan - ok, kick some arse after 9/11 but we shouild have got straight out again having smashed the Taliban and left the local warlords to squabble over the spoils (as they did anyway). And that's it.

Since then it's all been about subsidising the US defence complex, and millions have died as a consequence.