Thursday, 21 April 2011

Selective Naivety

One of the things that I have noticed since the Wikileaks scandal emerged is how quick the left, as well as the right, are to display small-government instincts and a Machiavellian skepticism to human affairs. It seems that what may broadly be described as 'the right' are quick to notice the corruption, bureaucracy, unscrupulous activity and unforeseen consequences of 'big government' at home on domestic issues, but will often turn a blind eye or see such occurrences as inevitable in regards to foreign policy. And similarly the left which increasingly in America expects the government to take responsibility for so many important facets of American life displays that exact same scepticism and fear when it relates to the government's trustworthiness and reliability in foreign affairs. 

It's strange that according to liberals humanity can always be expected, with wide-eyed utopianism to simply 'work things out' and enjoy the benefit of the doubt, on issues of mass immigration, crime and government control of our lives and yet all that naivety is thrown out of the door as soon as it comes to foreign policy.

One day they'll learn. 

Friday, 1 April 2011

Fool Me Once...

The disaster that became known as the Iraq War can largely be put down to poor planning rather than poor intentions. The war against Gaddafi could soon be thought of in the same terms if intentions aren't quickly decided upon and planning quickly implemented.

My own view on Libya was that whatever the political views of the rebels there was no justice in allowing them to be bombed by a vicious dictator. This meant that for ethical reasons alone it made sense to enforce a No Fly Zone. There still remains however many on the 'isolationist right' who cannot accept the realities of a globalised world and the implications this has for Britain. It is not the case that only by intervening we create enemies as the Lockerbie Bombing should have made clearer to people like Peter Hitchens. While we do not have the financial ability to intervene in all unstable nations whose geographical and economic ties make them part of our geo-political strategy, we can set a precedent and set a strong message to others by setting an example and intervening in just one. The same idiots like Ken Livingstone on Question Time who ask why we don't invade Saudi Arabia and Bahrain clearly would not support us if we invaded the long list of dictatorships that they provide for us, and should be quite capable of understanding that stopping Gaddafi should at least make the nearby dictatorships think twice.

It is quite clear that we cannot tolerate a madman behaving as he did on the borders of Europe, but in order for any intervention to be effective; objectives and strategy will have to be very quickly established. My initial support was for a No Fly Zone that would simply stop the bombing of civilians. The mission appears to be quickly slipping from a neutral enforcement of a conduct of war to taking the side of the rebels and the intention of full regime change. This at first glance would appear to be a mistake. We do not know anything about the rebels other than that they oppose the idea of being bombed by their own leader. While they are all united by what they do not want at the moment that offers no clues as to what they will be like once Gaddafi is removed and as the funding of the Mujahdeen during the Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan showed, the support will not necessarily be reciprocated once they are in charge. While there are undoubtedly many in Libya who hate Gaddafi and would welcome his removal there appears to be many more that also support his reign that were overlooked in Cameron's rush to be doing something. The intervention in 'Muslim' lands that resulted in regime change with many left resentful fits perfectly into the leftie's 'Blowback' thesis and could potentially become another entry in the long list of 'Muslim grievances', meaning that any intervention should be carefully thought out.

Of course there is a flip-side to this. What if in fact many of the rebels oppose Islamism and many of Gaddafi's funding of terror and could instead be a bulwark against Islamism? More importantly what could be the consequences and lasting impression of those rebels if the West had stood back and done nothing? There is certainly a reasonable case for war to be made but it must be thought out and careful. In all fairness to Cameron and Obama this situation was quickly forced on them rather than the other way around and they were slow enough to act to begin with and as such we can forgive a slight delay in a fully formed plan. But the sudden flip-flopping from Cameron on foreign policy since coming in to office and the lack of a clear directive in the war suggests there are many reasons to be concerned at the moment.

Anarchists, Hypocrites and the rest of the Left

I've put off commenting on the recent protests in London out of sheer irritation and disbelief at the events that have transpired. Where to start? Perhaps with the staggering hypocrisy that has been on display?
March For The Alternative: [Blank]

- For starters, what in the hell are 'anarchists' doing attacking a decrease in the size of the state?

- At what point did we stop being a democracy? Did the millions of absurdly over-taxed members of the Middle Class take to the streets during New Labour's years of reckless spending? More importantly would they have been allowed to get away with signs like 'Kill Welfare Layabouts' as similar signs were excused about the bankers?

- Why are the far-left not held to the same standards as the far-right? Why is it that on the issue of Palestine, so-called 'moderates' of Labour are allowed to share platforms with the SWP and many of the genuinely anti-Semitic Islamists that they invite to speak? We can all imagine what would happen if a Countryside Alliance March allowed BNP banners to spread around, but why is that standard not applied to the SWP in these marches?


I especially find it irritating that so many associated with this march that feel they have the right to demand their way, claim to speak for a majority of the population. This is particularly galling when the same day a poll was taken that suggested that some 28% of the population felt that the cuts were about right and 29% said they were not severe enough. What's more despite calling themselves a 'March For Alternative', absolutely no alternative was presented other than deny the deficit, tax more and increase the spending. It is also particularly infuriating the heavy association that the Labour party has with these marches. Not only does Labour get off scot free for its years of irresponsible spending and lack of foresight. It's years of deregulation and sucking up to the super-rich. But it is allowed to pose as a supporter of an 'alternative' when Labour has still not published what their plans for cuts would be having initially admitted that cuts would be necessary. Just as Labour managed to co-opt support against the implementation of the Browne Report that they fucking commissioned. This of course, all swirls together with one of the most ridiculous speeches ever given by Ed Milliband comparing a quick stroll through London with movements ranging from the Civil Rights Movement in America to even the uprisings taking place in the Middle-East!

Has anyone actually noticed that the Coalition is not even actually implementing any cuts but merely reducing the rate of increase in expenditure which will and is continuing to rise? Another idiotic cry that was doing the rounds was 'Tax The Rich'. So that after already bleeding out the Middle-Class for the already horrendously bloated and unsustainable Public Sector (which in the case of tuition fees the little dears will also tear apart London if they are asked to pay back even a small amount of), we should totally ignore the jobs, products and services that the big businesses supply (which is their leverage in exchange for playing lesser taxes) and take their hard-earned money until they pack their bags and take all of their revenue away with them. At what point did socialism become about coercing others for your living instead of earning it? Even if the self-defeating and unjust notion of 'taxing the rich' was put into place, the current rate of expansion and spending is still unsustainable and still revolves around writing a cheque that our children in the future will have to pay.

Some of you may remember Jody Mcintyre the wheelchair activist from the last round of cuts (who remains a cunt, whatever his disability) who I happen to know from friends who were there, in an introduction to a recent visit from Noam Chomsky at Cardiff University called for the overthrow of the British state in line with the Arab Spring as a response to the Coalition. You couldn't make it up.

They'll pay for ours though!
The last time I checked, even the EDL had not created this much damage or physically harmed this many members of the police that earn less in a year than many bankers earn in a day. In many ways despite the thousands of peaceful protesters (who were equally pathetic in actually presenting an alternative if not as equally deplorable) it is nice to see people like Sadiq Khan so quick to place the 'Guilt by [made up] Association' card get lumped together with the minority of violent yobs. The same applies to the utterly vapid Laurie Pennie. The truth is, the cuts at the moment do not go anywhere near far enough. Labour do not have the right to be considered morally legitimate proponents of 'alternatives'. Taxing others to pay for your living is unjust. And taxing future generations to pay for your luxury now is a disgrace.