View RSS Feed

coalition

Many months ago I posited that we are in no position to win a scrabble contest let alone another damned skirmish in the ME; some antis's scoffed...now eat your smirks..

Rate this Entry
[QUOTE=coalition;1117080][URL]http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sam-leith-better-late-than-never-to-join-the-fight-against-is-9762025.html[/URL]

Better late than never to join the fight against IS....I said (better never we look more stupid the longer this drags on)

We are asked to imagine them saying “Hoo-wee!” in the White House situation room. “The Brits are coming in. This crazy plan may just work after all ...” In the Hollywood film President Obama, played by someone nearly as handsome as the man himself, will allow his jaw to unclench fractionally. Sweat will be beading on his temple.
“Yup, Barrick,” David Cameron will be seen saying, pink with enthusiasm. “We’re a go mode. The ISIL won’t know what’s hit them.” “Okay, Tony,” Obama will reply. “That’s great. Good to have you on board.”
Cut to the air above Iraq. A pair of RAF Tornados are seen carving vapour trails into the sky, doing barrel rolls etc. The pilots will be doing thumbs-ups. And on the ground, a man with an AK-47 will look up as they pass with an expression of no more than faint curiosity.
There is something cherishably absurd about the British involvement in an air campaign against Islamic State. We’re late, for a start. “They had to wait for what until they could join the coalition against one of the most unimaginable evils of the age? Hang on: what’s ‘Labour Conference’?”
And the Americans, militarily speaking, aren’t exactly sunk without us. It’s been pointed out that while we were standing shoulder to shoulder and so forth on the liberation of Libya, we contributed seven missiles while the Americans lobbed in 221. The US has already assembled a pretty impressive coalition against Islamic State — and that coalition, which is much more important than our involvement, contains a number of Arab and Muslim nations.
Then, after all the fanfare, our planes couldn’t find anything much to blow up on their first sortie, so they returned brandishing some “invaluable intelligence” from their “highly sophisticated surveillance equipment” instead.
Even if that’s true, you can’t help saying it in your here’s-what-you-could-have-won voice.
Wise heads — including the former Chief of Defence Staff Lord Richards — say that even if we were gung-ho about Syrian air-space, which we aren’t, air strikes won’t do what we want to do. They say you can’t take and hold territory by dropping bombs on it. So for all the talk of “unleashing” our “military might” on the teenage head-hackers of Islamic State, we could equally well have unleashed our military might-as-well-not-have-bothered.
And yet and yet. Does that mean we shouldn’t be involved? not necessarily. That we can’t do everything isn’t an argument that we shouldn’t do anything. But the logic of the situation does seem to urge the case that we should either be involved a great deal less or a great deal more.
[/QUOTE]
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments