Monday, May 4, 2015

Why don't people remember Cameron's insane rush to war in Syria?


Is it just me or has almost everyone forgotten how David Cameron tried to wade into the Syrian civil war on the same side as ISIS (then known as Iraqi Al Qaeda) in 2013, but was defeated by parliament?

Does anybody remember how David Cameron, William Hague and the right-wing press did absolutely everything in their power to try to persuade parliament and the British public that wading into a foreign conflict on the same side as a bunch of murderous Islamist fanatics was a brilliant idea?

Does anybody remember how it was pointed out over and again that the Islamist fanatics that David Cameron was trying to ally himself with were responsible for all kinds of atrocities (the killing of civilians, the torture and murder of prisoners of war, child killing, use of chemical weapons, book burning, misogyny, destruction of cultural artifacts ...), yet Cameron and Hague carried on their insane rush to war regardless?

In the run up to the General Election why has hardly anyone mentioned the historic parliamentary vote in which David Cameron's insane rush to war was defeated? 
Why are so few people talking about the fact that Cameron's absurd desire to side with a bunch of brutal Islamist fanatics combined with his incredibly poor leadership resulted in him becoming the first UK Prime Minister to lose a war vote since 1782?

For me the moment that David Cameron's insane rush to war was defeated by a parliamentary rebellion was one of the few times that I had any positive feelings about Westminster politics in the whole of the last five years. However my relief that Cameron's insane warmongering had been dealt a historic defeat was not matched by the reaction of Tory party loyalists and the right-wing press.

Does anybody remember how the right-wing tabloids spewed thousands of column inches of furious bile at Ed Miliband for daring to derail Cameron's insane rush to war? 


When the press should have been thanking Ed Miliband for preventing what would surely have turned into the Islamist take-over of Syria, they attacked him as a self-serving coward and a traitor for daring to stand up and defeat David Cameron's insanity. Their fury stemmed from the fact that Miliband had refused to meekly do as the right-wing press had wanted and let Cameron help a bunch of murderous Islamist fanatics take over Syria.
   

Can anyone imagine what the situation in Syria would be like now if David Cameron would have got the war he so desperately wanted, and as a consequence helped ISIS to take over the whole country?

I know the situation in Syria is still appalling, and that Assad is a tyrant - I said exactly the same during Cameron's rush to war - however I'm pretty sure that few would contest the assertion that things would be a whole lot worse now if David Cameron would have got his way and created a power vacuum in Syria to be filled by a bunch of murderous Islamist fanatics.


Does nobody remember how David Cameron did an incredible 180 degree U-turn within a year of his historic parliamentary defeat and decided that the UK needed to start bombing ISIS (the very same Islamist fanatics he had wanted to fight alongside just a year previously)?


What better demonstration could there possibly be that Cameron's rush to war was so ill-conceived than the fact that within a year he had decided that we needed to launch a sustained bombing campaign against the same people he had wanted to fight alongside just a year before?

Given that David Cameron eventually accepted what people like me were saying all along (that the Islamist fanatics in Syria are even more dangerous than Assad), just imagine how much more difficult the situation would have been by now had David Cameron succeeded in getting his war, and handing ISIS control over the whole of Syria.

Looking at the personal approval rating, the public tend to judge David Cameron as being more "statesmanlike" and having better leadership qualities than Ed Miliband or any of the other opposition party leaders (other than Nicola Sturgeon). It's as if the public have completely forgotten how Cameron suffered the utter humiliation of being the first Prime Minister in over 200 years to lose a parliamentary war vote. And it's as if they've also forgotten that Ed Miliband, the other opposition party leaders, and a small bunch of coalition party rebels were responsible for preventing David Cameron's insane efforts to make an appalling situation in Syria a whole lot worse by creating a dangerous power vacuum for ISIS to fill.

  In my view David Cameron's insane rush to war in 2013 should be at the forefront of people's minds during the General Election because it was such an appalling display of inept leadership. More importantly, Cameron's rush to war represents absolutely clear evidence that he is a dangerous individual who is incapable of listening to reason; an individual who might well try to drag the UK into other conflicts without the remotest consideration of the likely consequences, or of what kind of murderous lunatics our armed forces might have to fight alongside at his behest.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.



No comments: