|
One reason why the UK voted no
 Outrage is not a strategy. I thought military action always had to have a purpose behind it so what is the endstate here? Hit, and then hope?I am not sure in what way even limited strikes help the people living in my constituency: how does this further Britains or Americas national security? There cannot be a sane person in Britain who would not think it a good thing for us to get involved in the war in Syria if by doing so it would ease the horrors faced by the Syrian people and dire risks to people in neighbouring countries. We must be guided not by our alliance to America, but by our duty to understand that military force should only be used in support of a clear purpose and with a clear objective in mind - in support of our national interest. I am yet to be convinced that there is a strong and clear-cut case that military action will deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons nor am I convinced that in 20 years time some other tyrant thinking of using chemical weapons will turn around and say to his or herself Whoops, better not do that: remember what Obama, Cameron and Hollande did back in the summer of 2013. The use of chemical weapons was indeed a crime against all of humanity. But by firing one missile we are involving ourselves in a civil war on the side of a fractured opposition which includes people with proud links to Al Qaeda. By striking now, without clear cause and purpose, we risk consequences that we have not even thought of: this is a case of hit and then hope. Adam Holloway, is a former British Army officer turned investigative war journalist. Mr. Holloway, without consulting his government, slipped into Afghanistan using his own funds (much like Michael Yon). In 2006, Mr. Holloway returned to the UK and eventually was elected to Parliament. Posted by: OldSpook 2013-09-04 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=375219 |