questions questions.

it is the oil of Libya, the removalof Gadaffi only or the pursuit of democracy as the West sees it. That Cameron has gone into this war so lightly, there are many questions to be answered which government ministers do not want to answer clearly and transparently.
-What is the final objective? If it is to remove Gadaffi, who will take his place?
-who are these so-called ‘rebels’?Are they really the good guys, Britain should be dealing with?
-How does the government know the rebels are not islamists? Are all the uprisings initiated by them?
-How long will this operation last? Is it mission creep?
-What are the motives? oil, takeover, democracy?
-Does this government know what it is doing? Or is it rather, like all its other policy. Gung-ho type plans which turn out to be mistakes soon after?
-Is the government to open up the SDSR again? Surely our armed forces and troops will need more, and to be better equipped in order to complete this mission. Which is at present unclear and indefinite in its objectives.
-Is Bahrain, Syria, Yemen next?

So many questions, to which we have no clear answers, yet, the media is treating Cameron as a hero who has gotten his own hands dirty. Its easy enough to order troops to go in to battle, much harder to see the process through. Without the full facts
The aims of making Libya a democratic country and protecting civilians are all fine and well, but what of other nations, as Syria Yemen or Bahrain? Cameron, has jumped into this war with much the same attitude he has shown thus far to governance. quick with an idea, but always lacking a plan.

Massie writes

“again, the seventh time in 21 years that British forces have gone into action but none of those previous interventions, not even Kosovo, were begun with this lack of clarity. Afghanistan and Iraq developed mission-sprawl but in each case the initial goal was pretty clear. Not so here, not least since no-one seems able to agree on what the goal should be. This does not seem an especially promising way to start a war.”

The problem with this big-idea is that it has grave unforseen consequences, up against a ‘mad-dog’ ruler with 40 years rule behind him and is not willing to stand down anytime soon, Gadaffi is experienced in using the military, Cameron is not.

Cameron said only last month “you can’t drop democracy from 40,000 feet”. Yet this is what he says now he is trying to do. As for those who unsurprisingly support Cameron and the governments actions, it is much the same that they accuse Gadaffi and the like of -propaganda- when the likely casualties and repurcussions are felt, they’ll still be heaping praise on them.

Now that the Arab League has condemned the no fly zone and that the US is having second thoughts, what are the British government going to do, u-turns are not an option this time.


One Response to questions questions.

  1. WitteringWitney says:

    ” u-turns are not an option this time.” Oh I don’t know Pixilady – we have had u turn after u turn after u turn, so whats one more?

    I do come back to the point I made yesterday – if we are broke where the hell has all this money to start a war come from?

leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: