7th
September 2013,
With autumn seeping slowly into Edinburgh, the holidays done and summer over. Must be, since I seem to have acquired an outer garment, commonly called a jacket!
But what have I missed? Senator McCain cosying up with President Obama? Strange bedfellows, surely. But then, needs must might be their thinking.
But must we, bomb & therefore kill more Syrians that is? There’s bound to be…what is that euphemism? Got it: collateral damage. So why should we?
In the belief that it will stop Syrians from killing (more) Syrians? Very easy for me to ask, and decry intervention as proposed, as I sit here comfortable, expecting to be safe and fairly secure…if I don’t worry about the rise in the cost of living, food price increases, winter looming and fuel prices escalating…yes, minor worries in comparison to Syria.
Does force need to be met by force? Do we need to cosy up with Al Q’aeda? It’s taken us how long to come to terms with the situation in Afghanistan that demonstrates we are now required to dialogue with the Taliban and their ‘supporters’.
Because whatever we know, don’t know, don’t want to know, Al Qeda is there, in Syria, operating in what is in effect, a civil war. So the question has to be: should we be there? And if not there with boots on the ground, though admittedly, that was never part of the proposition, then there, Syria actively supporting airstrikes?
Is that the only action? The best action? Why active, military intervention? Is it to demonstrate our moral outrage and commitment to the outlawing of chemical warfare? So who’s selling it?
Is there no other way of supporting victims, or engaging with protagonists in an effort to reduce death & destruction with a view to some form of cease fire and peace building after that?
Why was it so important after the Commons defeat for there to be warnings from our prophets of doom, informing us that our special relationship was over, and that our influence on the world stage was greatly diminished?
This wasn’t about us, remember, but about the victims on all sides; it’s about death & destruction; it’s about a civil war in another country.
Are we so immature that we’re put out when the door closes on the war boys talking their war toys and we’re not in there, too?
Are we so fragile that we worry when we see the French…yes, the French…talking to the Americans at top table level and we’re not there? Sacre bleu!
And what good will that do Hollande? Does Hollande want to morph into a Blair-et? Does he believe that such a stance of co operation and involvement will convince a sceptical electorate come the next election that French socialists are strong, determined, and most definitely not wishy washy lefty anti war mongers, anti American?
After all, isn’t that what happened here? Wasn’t that part of the fiasco that we saw unfold, leading to our involvement in the war in Iraq, w m d, (or rather the lack of)? In time for the next general election in the UK, post the invasion of Iraq, didn’t Blair want to be seen as everything other than anti American, anti-war? Didn’t he want to be up there on the world stage?
Et tu, Hollande?
So where are the internal refuges in Syria in all of this?
The displaced persons within their own country? And then the hundreds and thousands who have swept over into neighbouring countries as refugees? And will our posturing help them?
If it is our chosen lot not to be part of military strikes, thanks to the democratic process of the UK government, then let further processes of humanitarian support and aid to the desperate people of Syria be the first priority, carried out along with every possible diplomatic move to bring about a cease fire that moves into a peaceful future for Syria and its people.
Now that's something I could believe in and hope that my MP would vote for too.
Syria crisis: al-Qaeda seizes village that still
speaks the ancient language of Christ reported in the Daily telegraph
No comments:
Post a Comment