Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

BROWSE MY BOOKS WITH THESE LINKS 

    Malcolm Blair-Robinson U.S        

    Malcolm Blair-Robinson U.K.

The last time this came before the House of Commons the proposal was to bomb Assad military assets because he was said to be using chemical weapons; a fact that was in doubt because of a good deal of evidence that it was a rebel set up. The vote was No, not least because it beggared belief that after so much mayhem and such spectacular failures, this country would get into yet another fight.

The various failures of policy, strategy, planning and purpose have contributed to the rise of IS which is headquartered in Syria and the sworn enemy of Assad, whose military is no longer strong enough to defeat it. We are already bombing IS in Iraq, while the Americans and others are bombing this terrifying phenomenon in Syria too. IS has just claimed responsibility for massacring British holidaymakers. No wonder there is a cry for revenge. Since IS has abolished the border between Syria and Iraq there seems little need to hold back. If we bomb here we might just as well bomb there. Moreover Assad has already lost control of the area, so we would not be launching against a sovereign government.

However there are two questions. So far no bombing anywhere has worked and most of it has damaged our interests. So a question mark hangs over whether this bombing will be any different. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence to support the fear that the more we bomb the more we radicalize. We are now in the extraordinary territory of whole families of British citizens setting off to join IS. This is as much a war within as without and the target surely ought to be the communications network through which this doctrine is spread, as much as an arms dump somewhere on the edge of a desert. GCHQ is perhaps the driver, not the RAF.

The second question is this. There are three key allies in the fight against IS whom we fail to publicly recognise, although behind the scenes there are contacts and cooperation. These are Iran, Russia and Assad. Would it not be better to come into the open and form a joint strategy to at least contain IS on the ground. Defeating it is not really a military option in spite of the fighting talk, since although it is very well organised and funded and has seized a good deal of territory in which the most blood thirsty regimen is apparently in force, is is not actually a significant military power. The power lies in  the idea it stands for. Until the idea is contested successfully IS is here to stay.