![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
smokingbootI recall a clever man, a bright eyed backbencher running rings around rivals and opponents. He could think on his feet and talk fast and make sense and leave the mouthbreathers standing around looking to fellow carnies for comfort. I liked him, a lot, and knew he'd 'get somewhere.'
It was the whole WMD farce in Iraq that did for him really. Yes, Saddam and his horrible family merited an end, but the premis turned out to be false. It was the last time I really believed in Blair; the tarnish was permanent; he abandoned us to Gordo, who couldn't do the job and Blair knew that. It always felt like he was taking some obscure revenge on the Labour party. It worked though, and now we have Cameron/Clegg.
Of all the times to consider a military intervention, this must surely be the worst. And yet, there are so many parallels with the 80s I would be surprised if some possible benefits haven't occurred to Cameron. But he's not a complete fool - not a brilliant man but not a warmonger for its own sake. This would not be the Falklands, and he is more likely to face discredit a la Blair than victory a la Thatcher.
It feels very wrong. If we go in, what is our actual aim? To end Assad? To rule in his place? How long would we stay? To put in a sockpuppet - or what we hope is a sockpuppet - government? When was the last time that method worked? Assuming that Assad gassed his own folk, would we be backing anyone better...better than Amin, or Hussein, or Mugabe? Our track record is not good.
I don't know what the answer is. All I can think of is that instead of sending warships, perhaps we should send aid to the refugee camps, send doctors and nurses, vehicles, medical supplies, atropine, food for God's sake...help to rehome these people. That alone is a massive undertaking.
I don't know if that's right, if that's a solution, but it is a start. Perhaps Baghdad is better now than in Hussein's time, surely it must be.
But there is something about all this that seems very odd. Trying to put my finger on it, I guess it is my suspicion that the government are using this as a handwaving ploy; to get us furious at the evils of Syria while our rights get carved up before our very eyes.
I remember a bright eyed clever man who screwed things up, despite all his smarts.
There's no such cleverness around now.
It was the whole WMD farce in Iraq that did for him really. Yes, Saddam and his horrible family merited an end, but the premis turned out to be false. It was the last time I really believed in Blair; the tarnish was permanent; he abandoned us to Gordo, who couldn't do the job and Blair knew that. It always felt like he was taking some obscure revenge on the Labour party. It worked though, and now we have Cameron/Clegg.
Of all the times to consider a military intervention, this must surely be the worst. And yet, there are so many parallels with the 80s I would be surprised if some possible benefits haven't occurred to Cameron. But he's not a complete fool - not a brilliant man but not a warmonger for its own sake. This would not be the Falklands, and he is more likely to face discredit a la Blair than victory a la Thatcher.
It feels very wrong. If we go in, what is our actual aim? To end Assad? To rule in his place? How long would we stay? To put in a sockpuppet - or what we hope is a sockpuppet - government? When was the last time that method worked? Assuming that Assad gassed his own folk, would we be backing anyone better...better than Amin, or Hussein, or Mugabe? Our track record is not good.
I don't know what the answer is. All I can think of is that instead of sending warships, perhaps we should send aid to the refugee camps, send doctors and nurses, vehicles, medical supplies, atropine, food for God's sake...help to rehome these people. That alone is a massive undertaking.
I don't know if that's right, if that's a solution, but it is a start. Perhaps Baghdad is better now than in Hussein's time, surely it must be.
But there is something about all this that seems very odd. Trying to put my finger on it, I guess it is my suspicion that the government are using this as a handwaving ploy; to get us furious at the evils of Syria while our rights get carved up before our very eyes.
I remember a bright eyed clever man who screwed things up, despite all his smarts.
There's no such cleverness around now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-08-26 07:12 pm (UTC)No man is a prophet in his neighbour's country, I suppose.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 07:30 am (UTC)I was appalled by the whole 'Money's Not There,' thing at the end of his last term. How could that be?
But he was a much more honourable person than Cameron/Clegg. And I think history will be kind to him.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-26 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 07:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 12:00 pm (UTC)In the meantime, watch the Kurdish Nation State slowly coalesce around the fringes of all the recent horrors. That will probably kick off next.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 05:00 pm (UTC)Why would things kick off around a Kurdish state? An issue for Turkey, I guess?
no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 09:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 10:06 pm (UTC)