AddThis

Share |

Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Cameron pledges the UK to a war without end and without meaning


A comment made by the Prime Minister recently left me feeling poleaxed, and upon reading it I felt like rubbing my eyes and dousing myself in cold water to ensure that I was awake. Surely he could not have uttered the following sentence and believed in the substance of the words that he was enunciating with respect to the recent hostage crisis in Algeria:
What does he mean by stating “had to deal with”? By using these words he seems to imply that the problem there has been solved. Has it? What has been achieved in Afghanistan? How has the problem been dealt with in Pakistan? Has the Islamist problem been solved in either country, or even here in the UK? Quite clearly, the answer must be no. Our intervention in Afghanistan may have eliminated al-Qaeda training camps, but what in reality has it achieved? When our forces leave that country after well over a decade of death, mutilation, psychological trauma and the expenditure of billions of pounds, what will we see? A prosperous Afghanistan friendly to the UK advocating freedom of opinion and expression for its citizens, together with respect and equal rights for its women, or a jubilant Taliban-dominated theocracy celebrating victory over the infidel, just as antipathetical to the UK and the West in general as it was in 2001 and imbued with a spirit of vengeance? It would seem that the second scenario would be far closer to what emerges than the former one.

A decade on from invasion and its subsequent occupation Iraq remains a religiously and ethnically cleft violent wreck. The Arab Spring, encouraged by the UK Government, has led to increased instability across North Africa and the Middle East, with Islamists playing a major role in the popular uprisings and in the new administrations that have emerged following the toppling of the old regimes. Cameron and Hague were keen to intervene in Libya, and have been chomping at the bit to do the same in Syria, irrespective of the chaos and geopolitical blowback that such meddling can produce. It has been widely claimed that the post-Qaddhafi instability in Libya has helped to flood parts of North Africa with weaponry, assisting an upsurge in violent Islamist militancy that has manifested itself both in the ongoing attempt to overthrow the Malian government as well as in the recent Algerian hostage crisis.

The Prime Minister’s call for a “global response” to what he dubs the “al-Qaeda” threat is thoroughly wrongheaded. Islamism existed before Bin Laden and it will exist long after his passing. Islamism, in one form or another, is as old as Islam itself, and until that ideology dies we will always have a problem with its violent fanatics wishing to impose their crude, vicious and misanthropic ideology upon everyone else: non-literalist Muslims and non-Muslims alike. What, after all, does Cameron mean when he states that:
Perhaps the Prime Minister should steer clear of reference to “iron” to denote resolve, for we all now how brittle his “cast iron” guarantee proved to be with respect to an EU membership referendum. Is he committing us to an endless series of wars in which we fight with our hands tied behind our backs, bereft of either a clear goal or modus operandi? If so, who will die and who will pay for this policy? What benefit will it bring and to whom?

It would appear that the immense corrupting wealth of the Saudis and the other Arab petrodollar states of the Gulf has effectively muzzled politicians such as Cameron. The fountainhead of Islamism today, in both its violent and political variants, is Saudi Arabia. Find an effective alternative to oil, and the Saudis’ malign and growing influence would collapse. Thus, to find such an alternative should be one of our key political and economic tasks. The Saudis produce nothing of value other than what they pump out of the ground, with the rest of their wealth being derived from parasitic investment around the globe. If Cameron truly wished to wage war to destroy Islamism he would call for the subjugation and occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, but to be ‘successful’, that sort of war would call forth the logic of total war witnessed in the horrific brutality displayed by both sides on the Eastern Front with its associated exterminist logic. Who wants such a war? Not me. I would prefer the option of the peaceful development of viable alternative energy sources and the concomitant undermining and collapse of the economic, political and cultural influence of the Arab petrodollar states. Only then will we stand a chance of defeating Islamism.

Cameron and Hague are intellectual lightweights, and if they truly wished to root out Islamism they could make no better start than by rooting it out at home, for after all, they and their political predecessors in the Labour Party have allowed it to flourish in Britain. They may as well launch drone strikes on Tower Hamlets and Bradford as upon Pakistan, for there is not a great deal to differentiate the two environments other than an increasingly nominal sovereignty. As it is, the two men seem intent upon poking their noses into as many Islamist hornets’ nests as possible, with Syria and Mali looking like our most probable forthcoming entanglements.

Such interventions will be pointless, bloody, expensive and ineffectual. Moreover, they will generate ever-greater resentment against us, no matter how ill founded, by Muslims around the globe. At the same time, Cameron, Hague and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to push for the economic and eventual political integration of the countries of the Middle East and North Africa into an expanded EU, arguing that this is ‘necessary’ to disseminate economic prosperity throughout the Arab world and thereby undermine support for Islamism. This is the eventual goal of Euromed, but in reality what it would achieve, if its logic were to be fully enacted, would be for every state in the EU to be flooded by a massive demographic wave from the Muslim states of the eastern and southern Mediterranean littoral, bringing economic and cultural decline to Europe, as well as the demographic eclipse and eventual disappearance of the European peoples. Alas, a twin combination of cack-handed interventionism and half-baked policies on economic integration are likely to be the favoured response of the current Government. It is a grim prospect, but we can expect only support for such a policy from an intellectually bankrupt Labour Party. Where is the effective opposition? Who will articulate the much-needed alternative?


13 comments:

  1. It's all about the money, oil and control. Plus, starting wars means our (taxpayer's) money is handed over to the elites to fight and fund the war. Cameron probably has a stake in an arms company or perhaps his FiL does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We desperately need a viable alternative to oil.

      Delete
  2. This article is 'right on' and very well expressed. The 'Head of the Snake'(Saudi Arabia) must be cut off. As to any war, Agatha Christie had it right! I must paraphrase, but in short she said, "War profits no one, neither the conquered nor the victor." World War II was the exception. Let the inter Muslim wars, such as Syria, burn themselves out. Muslims have been fighting Muslims for 14 centuries. But let us not ignore Iran. The evil leadership of that country has long been spreading its tentacles even into South America.England needs new leadership. Paul Weston's party may be the answer. Tommy Robinson of the EDL is in prison! Things look grim from Canada. May the words of Tennyson give hope: "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of." (Morte D'Artur). (BTW, just a note: many Muslims do love their new homeland, be it England or Canada.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. The party that you refer to is pretty much moribund and has been almost exclusively focused upon the Islamic issue, which electorally is, and has been, a recipe for disaster.

      Delete
  3. And a war with at least 5,000 less pairs of 'boots on the ground'.

    Saudi Arabia is the financial and ideological powerhouse behind these 'Jihads' and are responsible for funding the Mosque-building programme in Western Europe and the sooner that Governmens wake up and smell the 'Traidcraft' coffee the better..........

    Laurie -

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saudi influence will not wane until either we have a viable alternative to oil or they have pumped every last drop out of the ground.

      Delete
  4. What is the real agenda here?
    Is it foreign wars that we must fight and win, or might it be something else entirely? Like keeping the armed forces at a distance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's something that Cameron can do in an attempt to generate 'positive' headlines. He's incapable of producing positive ones at home by facing up to more serious and pressing issues, such as the economy.

      Delete
  5. Durotogian, I appreciate it takes a considerable period of time to set-up a new party in order to get its foundations right but can I enquire as to when this new party will finally come into existence as it seems to be delayed and then delayed some more. The BNP has imploded and will never recover yet we need a real nationalist party to take-on the Tory dupes of UKIP whose sole real difference with the Lib/Lab/CON is the EU issue and Cameron has probably done enough to take the ground from under UKIP's feet.

    If the new party isn't set-up soon, I will have to conclude that electable nationalism in Britain is a lost cause and we nationalists will just have to content ourselves to losing our country!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's proving to be a drawn-out process, but it is better to get the policy mix and approach right from the outset. It really will not be much longer (I know that it must feel like 'Waiting for Godot' at times) before news is forthcoming. If you would like to get involved, please mark your comment as NOT FOR PUBLICATION and leave me your contact details.

      Delete
  6. without strife, how can they justify the war on liberties?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excellent piece on the naivety of our leaders as they push the old terrorist line, as if the only threat comes from a fringe element of Al Qaeda linked terrorist groups. Why do they ignore the growing threat from all corners of the Islamic world? Not from all Muslims of course but a growing number who boast the superior virtues of Sharia and call for more and more Islam. Not just in Islamic countries either they’re doing it here in the West in countries where Islam and Sharia have no business rearing their head.

    In the push for global Islamic dominance Al Qaeda linked terrorist groups are only a part of the jigsaw. The growing and in many ways more serious threat comes from so called moderate Muslim nations as they overthrow secular dictators (with our help of course) and install Muslim brotherhood style leaders who promptly introduce Sharia law and more Islam.

    Picture a future Islamic world where most of the countries are run along an Iranian model of Islamic dictatorship oppressing their own people and financing global Jihad against the West to spread the glories of Islam and Sharia. And our blinkered leaders throughout Europe are busily helping them create that future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Dinan. It is Saudi finance together with those whom it supports in this country that we need to be most concerned about. However, even worse than either of those factors is our absence of political leadership and backbone, for this could all be dealt with quite readily should the correct political decisions be taken.

      Delete

Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.