OK, I admit I called it wrong when I previously suggested that no-one was listening to Cameron over the Libyan no-fly zone. He's got a UN resolution of sorts and this is now being touted as a British diplomatic victory and some bloggers are calling Cameron a 'statesman'. Yes, well, I beg to differ and I hope that Ghadaffi loses his nerve and the whole episode ends without us having to fire a shot. If, however, it does come to military conflict, I would just like to put down my reasons for opposing this silly military adventure, which may make me look like a left wing fruit cake, but I believe them to be thoroughly conservative and pragmatic in reasoning :
1. Cost- we are continually being told by the Tory high command that our country is near bankrupt, which is why we have had to cut the public finances to their greatest extent ever, including, strangely enough our Defence forces. Yet, how is it, when we are living through these spending cuts and the military cuts have meant we have ditched our harriers, nimrods, aircraft carriers and plan to reduce the army to under 100,000 people (even though were are already in one hot war), we can suddenly find the cash to pay for this Cameron -poll boosting attempt.
2. How and with What?- see point 1 above, given that UK military effectiveness is as about as great as Belgium (a country, without a government for nearly a year) thanks to our coalition cuts, please tell me how military intervention is going to succeed if it ends up as a ground invasion. I appreciate that the UK is not going to do this alone, and Cameron will doubtless throw as much of what is left of the military into this, but the whole bit about Cameroonian statesmanship is a bit laughable given that overall it will be the US 6th fleet's carriers who have the biggest bombs and planes and do most of the work; plus a bit of support from the French, who do have a slight advantage over us now, as they have 1 aircraft carrier(!).
3. Will it work? - Iraq was under the cosh of a no-fly zone for nearly a decade and yet it did not defeat Saddam (a ground war was needed for that) or stop him from brutalising his people.
4. Why Libya ? - A question I would really liked to be answered is that if this intervention is on "moral" grounds, because the leadership of Libya is attacking crushing their own people, then why is Cameron not wanting to strike at Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, the Republic of Congo, Somalia, North Korea and Sudan/Darfur? I could go on with this list, but you see the point I am making here?
5. Another Iraq- self explanatory really, but what happens if the west gets rid of Ghadaffi and the chaos as seen in Iraq ends in a greater bloodshed. What happens if those who have been misruled by the current regime turn on the west and begin a campaign against any military force in the country?
6. Where is the national interest ? - It was apparently in the UK national interest to release the Lockabie bomber. Now it is in the national interest to get rid of the same guy whom we did a deal with; I would understand if this were about a part of Britain, in the way the Falklands is, but it is not. Nothing of course to do with the oil contracts the UK was hoping to get by releasing the Lockabie bomber.
7. Blair is Back-Yep, the Blair doctrine of 'Liberal Imperialism' is back or as it is called in America the "Neo-Cons"; that is military intervention on apparent moral grounds, in which the UK, sometimes lead by or sometimes pleading with the US (and occasionally the French) go round the world getting rid of "the mad dictator regime" and attempt to replace it with democracy. Except of course, it only applies when the "mad dictator" is sitting on vast oil reserves or is in Europe (which to my mind explains point 4) .
0 comments:
Post a Comment