If I am not mistaken, there were warnings issued before the United States attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan: A coherent strategy involved a beginning, a middle, and an end, and without all of those elements, the countries involved were likely to devolve into a chaotic and bitter and sectarian outcome that would drain U.S. attention and coffers with no credible silver lining.
The same lack of coherence shows every sign of being applied in the current war dance over Syria -- a country that has suffered enormous civilian casualties and displacements. A "humanitarian disaster" is not too strong a phrase and with the latest nerve-gas attacks, the volume has been ratcheted up.
Setting aside the fact that "humanitarian disasters" are seldom, if ever, the concern of governments, still the chaos in Syria is a rock-and-a-hard-place for the U.S. and others similarly (pro or con) concerned: Go in and risk a wider conflict; stay out and risk an unending chaos and, as a sidelight, a bloodbath.
Will there be a strategic beginning, middle and end woven into whatever action is taken? Much as anyone might protest, I seriously doubt it.
It's all enough to make a blind man -- or a sighted one either -- weep.
Madness madness madness..the sense of Deja Vu is overwhelming. The British Foreign Secretary William Hague is using exactly the same language , and even the same phrases, as Blair before the Iraq debacle.ReplyDelete
Yes, you might think, with all the money they plan to throw at this thing, that they could afford fresh script writers.ReplyDelete
On second thought, Goebbels was never shy about repeating the same thing over and over again and he got away with it. Maybe taking your cues from the master is the safest course.
Robin Hood was right. But then so was George Orwell.ReplyDelete
Update...in an completely unexpected move the British House of Commons has refused to endorse Prime Minister David Cameron's bid to support Obama's proposed use of military intervention in Syria.....ReplyDelete