AFTER THE TRAGIC EVENTS in Tunisia, the prime minister has
once more raised the possibility of bombing Syria – this time not to help rid
that benighted country of Assad's regime… but of ISIS. His first attempt met
with failure in a vote in the House of Commons, but no doubt he thinks that the
murdering of 35 British holiday makers by ISIS will bring the newly elected
House around this time; and many MPs who would have balked yet again at such an
adventure will now either support it because of the carnage, or because if they
do not they will have their own constituents to answer to.
So let
us assume that, like the Daily Telegraph's Asa Bennett, that we are months away
from bombing Syria. How strong, therefore, is the RAF to take on such a
commitment? Well Mr Bennett, using figures compiled by the Royal United
Services Institute, suggest we have only 54 frontline aircraft immediately available
to meet David Cameron's limited ambitions. Obviously, only the Tornado bombers
will qualify for the kind of operation. These are the aircraft that target the
$10,000 trucks with one or two ISIS on board… but with what? How much does a
laser guided bomb cost compared to the Ford trucks targeted?
On top
of which we learn from the figures garnered by Mr Bennett, that there are only
eight Tornadoes immediately available. In total we 242 front line fighter and
bomber aircraft; but as I have already mentioned, of that total only 54 are
immediately available; and of that total only eight bombers are available. Cost
cutting by politicians is playing its part, I suggest, in keeping such a
beleaguered front line force unavailable.
SO IF the prime minister has his way and we start to carry
out raids to bomb ISIS in Syria with our immediately available Tornados; what
kind of impact would they have on ISIS? I suggest NONE whatsoever. Cameron
knows this but to do something is better than just emoting over the deaths of
these British citizens. His rhetoric (like that of Obama's) is ment to sooth
and to show, in Cameron's case, the British public, that something is being
done. It will be yet another fruitless exercise – but one intended to pacify the
relatives of those people slaughtered on a Tunisian beach, and the British
public, who they assume will be satisfied by nightly MoD images of ISIS's
trucks being destroyed, probably after the RAF have been ordered not to do so
if there is chance that ISIS has a civilian on board as a human shield.
First
of all ISIS needs to be tackled from the ground and the West knows this, and is
why we have sent arms and military advisors to northern Iraq to help the Kurds. This is also why the West, after
its intervention into Iraq left behind such advisors and millions of dollars
USA military hardware which is now in the hands of ISIS.
ISIS IS WINING because the West is weak and its leaders
fearful of conscience riven sleepless nights; sleepless because of their fear
of what has to be done to destroy ISIS and keep Western values solvent. During
the Second World War and the bombing raids over Germany which killed hundreds
of thousands of civilians, Churchill felt at the least distressed, but he knew
that 'Bomber' Harris was what was needed, and he was prepared to accept
whatever judgement history made of his decision to allow Harris to carry out
his one thousand bomber raids over Germany.
We have
no Churchill or 'Bomber' Harris today who is prepared to accept the guilt for
such actions that may in the future turn them into monsters. Today we have an
almost effete leadership throughout Europe; and currently in the USA. We in the
West currently have a feeble and dissipated political class of liberal
rationalists whose persuasive tongues, or so they believe, will overcome even
ISIS, and if they do not, they will suggest a compromise.
WE ARE faced with a medieval enemy using medieval forms of
attrition such as beheadings; but with modern forms of communication such as
the internet; ISIS is only strong because the West is weak and impotent of mind:
weak also because it is in the grip of a perfidious liberal conscience. We have
seen how this conscience, when Israel responds to the Hamas missiles launched
in their hundreds against Israeli citizens, works. We saw this when Israel
entered Gaza to end the flurry of daily delivered missiles from Gaza with
little concern for the Israeli population.
The
liberal West who insisted on proportionality and castigated Israel for killing
so many Gazan Palestinian civilians who were in effect shielding Hamas
terrorists in the buildings from which Hamas were firing on the Israelis; is a non
sequitur as far as charges of war crimes against the state of Israel are
concerned. Israel, as always, will do whatever is necessary to keep the Jewish
people safe within their own homeland – and rightly so. I only wish that Cameron would do the same
for the indigenous people of England.
DAVID CAMERON is deceiving his public[1]
when he proposes to unleash the might of the RAF[2]
on ISIS in Syria. I am almost ashamed to be British. Cameron's New Conservative
Party is as vacuous as Blair's New Labour one. Cameron knows the state of our
armed forces; for he agreed to their cuts in 2010 in order to make the NHS and
the overseas age budget its priority to alleviate the Tory Party from remaining
the nasty party: and this continues now with ever further cuts to defence in
the pipeline.
If
Cameron is not careful his legacy will prove not to have been his stewardship
of a prosperous economy, but of untold damage he wrought on his nation's
defences at a time in his country's history when his people needed a strong
defence against ISIS and Putin. Europe has never found itself as vulnerable
from the outside and the inside, as it does today. I believe that the years of
peace we have enjoyed since the ending of the Second World War may turn out to
have been nothing more than a peaceful interregnum, before the volley's are
fired off once again on European soil.
No comments:
Post a Comment