If not Assad

It is clear that we are moving towards a change in approach to the Syrian civil war.

Putin's Russia has always been clear that he supports the regime of President Assad.  We can sense though, that some European leaders are also moving in that direction.  The problem for the Europeans is that they have been very publicly strident in their condemnation of Assad.  They have repeatedly said, that Assad must go and they wouldn't talk to him.

Finally, however, these leaders are recognising that Assad has to play a part in the process.  This dawning of reality, however odious it might seem (and do listen out for the knee-jerk shrieks of horror from the liberal media), also finally moves the focus very strongly onto how to eliminate Daesh (ISIS).

Russia is calling for coordination of the military effort and, if only to avoid a potential clash between East and West forces, this really has to happen.  France has now commenced air operations against Daesh, in Syria - having earlier said that such actions would be illegal!  Seems like President Hollande is putting socialist rhetoric behind realpolitik in the pecking order.  UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, is expected to bring a motion before parliament, within the coming weeks, seeking parliamentary approval for the UK to join in the bombing of Daesh targets in Syria.  If Germany can pull itself away from the silly Volkswagen matter, then they too might participate.

This coalescing towards a coordinated and focused attack on Daesh can have a number of positive effects.

Firstly, this should allow for the creation of a series of safe zones within Syria, protected by the air power available.

Secondly, this will then provide a reason to halt the flood of migrants that have been leaving Syria.  For this, real assistance, rather than just score settling with Turkish Kurds, will be need to be demanded from Turkey.  Demanded because Turkey has, throughout the whole sorry story, served only its own interests.  Indeed, it is clear that Turkey, led by the strongly Islamic Erdogan, has allowed for a significant destabilisation of its neighbours and the EU.

Thirdly, this will take the fight to Daesh.  It is clear that the Syrians do not have the capability to eliminate them.  It is equally clear that the Iraqi army does not have the stomach for a fight against Daesh.  They have very little to no support amongst Sunni Iraqis.  Their Shia militias are simply lawless and, not too different from Daesh in how they subjugate the areas they occupy.  Their Iranian allies, seem more interested in colonizing the south of Iraq than in taking on Daesh.  The Kurdish Peshmerga can, and do, hold the line against Daesh but they are poorly armed and, due to Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian pressure, the West have produced very feeble support and materiel, so the Peshmerga are being under-used.

The issue of who succeeds Assad needn't concern us, at this point.  He is very weakened and whatever the outcome, cannot survive in the medium term.  This does not mean that Syria, free  of Daesh, will become a democracy post-Assad.  One has to question whether or not, the imposition of Western style democracy is suited for some countries, including Syria.  The Syrian civil war was a direct outcome of the so called Arab Spring.  This 'flowering' of people power has led to absolute chaos in Libya, an effective military dictatorship in Egypt (no realm change there!) and a loosening of control in Tunisia, following the ousting of long-term President Ben Ali, such that Islamic terror can stalk their tourist resorts, killing at will.

So change is coming to the Syria conflict and this will create some strange bed-fellows but the West, if Obama and Kerry's naivete  can be sidelined, has an opportunity to eliminate Daesh and then to eliminate Al Qaeda in Syria (though doing the latter might just create a vacuum for Hezbollah to fill). Now therefore, is the time for Cameron and Hollande to show backbone and stand-up to this lame-duck US President and his court-jester Secretary of State.  Who knows, they might even get some trade-off, from Russia, relative to Ukraine.

Answer to the ISIS dilemma

Western governments are in denial.

Right now they know that there is no appetite for any kind of 'boots on the ground' nor for any tie-up with the odious Assad regime. 

So what can they do to address this very significant threat? 

They are no doubt counting on ISIS' fifth columns within the USA, UK and France to commit bombing atrocities such that a groundswell of opinion for military intervention builds.  They must calculate how many bombings are needed.  Another Boston or maybe a spectacular like 9/11 or another Fusilier Lee Rigby or 7/7 in London?  Or maybe this time in Paris, which has a very special concern about its growing and self-alienated Muslim minority?

We should be alarmed because these atrocities will occur.  There is an inevitability about this that has escaped the media.

Islam is a religion of dominance.  Its adherents allow for no 'non-believers'.  You are either a Muslim and follower of Mohammed or you are an infidel.  Simply put, ones that doesn't follow Islam.  It will come as no comfort to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Atheists or those that follow the Jedi tradition, that their long and  often deeply held beliefs, count for nothing.  They are infidels and they must either convert to Islam or be punished.

The punishment is now being meted out on a daily basis in Iraq, to Christians and to Yazidis.  Also now, we hear, to Shiite Muslims.  The punishment is death.  There is no concept of co-existence, no 'my way or the highway'.  It's the Muslim way or death! Nothing extreme about this Sunni Muslim religion!  Think about this when you next hear some liberal fool tell you that Islam is the religion of peace!   Look twice and listen thrice at the 'moderate' Islamist that says that these fanatics don't represent the true face of Islam.  Simply put, these fanatics do represent Islam.

Catholics and Protestants fought many wars and caused countless deaths in furtherance of the schism in Christianity but the numbers have the potential to fade into insignificance compared to the deaths that will flow from the conflict between the two strands of Islam.  The 8 year long Iraq/Iran war cost the lives of an estimated million souls but that can be viewed as an appetizer for the multi-course banquet of death that awaits.  The 200,000 deaths in the proxy war being fought in Syria is also barely a taste of things to come. 

Right now, Sunni Saudi Arabia, with its extreme (though that term is relative) Wahabi sect, is at war with Shiite Iran and, in Syria and Iraq, the Saudis are in the ascendancy.  I say this, not to seek support for Iran, who are as likely to be as murderous as are the Saudi and Qatari backed ISIS fanatics.   Rather, this is a statement of the current state of play, however, should as seems ever more likely, Iran complete its quest for nuclear weapons, then the whole dynamic changes. 

In this goal of achieving a nuclear capability,  the Iranians are being aided by the inept policies of the Obama administration and a resurgent Russia (also a beneficiary of Obama's failed policies) as well as a feeble European Union foreign affairs effort.

The civilised world faces an existential battle. 

Communist China is feeling the effects of this.  India has seen this in the recent past, so has , Argentina, France, Nigeria and the aforementioned USA and UK to name just some of the countries.  Even the peacefully neutral Swedes and Norwegians are experiencing the conflict between their open societies and those of their Islamic migrant communities.  Denmark too has seen the illiberal consequences of allowing a cartoonist to publish his works.  Indeed Russia too, has tragic experience of trying to co-exist with the 'religion of peace' but Putin, having, some in the West say 'brutally dealt' with Islamic dissidents and terrorists, is currently playing a different game to secure Russia's borders and to poke America and the EU, in the eye at every opportunity.

So the solution?

First some history. 

When the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait in 1990, Margaret Thatcher was reported as telling the American President, George H Bush, not to go 'wobbly' and to have 'stiffened his spine' on the issue of confronting Saddam.  She saw the threat posed by Saddam and so too did Bush #1 quickly come to this realisation.

With, ISIS, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the civilised world faces a similar choice - either we fight now, in the sands of Arabia and Persia or we fight soon on the streets of London, Paris, New York, Beijing and Dehli.

Make no mistake, this is a fight that isn't going to go away.  It takes a certain type of fanaticism to hack-off the heads of people that don't follow your brand of religion.  The same kind of fanaticism that causes people to fly planes into buildings or walk into a hotel and randomly shoot people or to strap on a suicide bomb vest and detonate the bomb in a crowded market place.  Does it sound like these are people that can be reasoned with?  The lure of the 72 virgins is just too great for these people.  So since death is what they most want, death should be visited upon them and their supporters.

The solutions are not pretty but there is nothing nice about the aftermath of a suicide bombing or the beheading of innocents.

The world needs to decide where it stands and then back-up their declared position.  Russia needs to say if they are with the West or against it.  There can be no fence-sitting or neutrality.  Why?  Well this is about all-out war.  And it will be bloody and terrible.  ISIS and similar intolerant organisations need to be destroyed, not neutered, annihilated completely. 

Similarly Saudi Arabia and Qatar need to be brought to heel.  They cannot enjoy the fruits of western civilisation and industry while at the same time seeking the destruction of those societies.  The leadership of these countries need to be changed to reflect the required new direction that these countries must take.

Iran must immediately cease funding its proxies in Lebanon and Palestine and completely destroy its nuclear programme.  Again, regime change is needed.

Pakistan must give-up its nuclear weapons.  At this time the state is too unstable to be trusted with such weapons.  Its security services operate as a 'state within a state' and must be brought under democratic control before they decide to pass on enriched uranium to Islamic terrorists.

In Iraq and Syria, the allies - those that are 'with us' - need to impose a very heavy and brutally ruthless, military solution.  Any opposition, any, must be crushed and crushed completely.  There can be no hand-wringing in the media or from liberals in the West.  The consequences of a softly-softly approach can already be seen on the streets of our cities where ISIS fellow-travelers become ever more bold in pushing their murderous ideologies.  Where Islamsists kill a British soldier , on the streets of the capital and try to hack-off his head.  Where Islamists explode bombs at the finish-line of a marathon race.  Unfeeling brutality and force must be met with the a multiplied version of the same.  Make no mistake though, this will mean bombs dropped by planes and so called civilian casualties but we will also require to put 'boots on the ground'.  We will also need to impose economic sanctions against these people - starve them of the goods and yes, foods,  that their people need.  Frankly faced with pictures of the victims of ISIS or the pictures of starving ISIS followers, I would always be moved by the former and never by the latter.

The approach to Iraq and Syria must also be applied in North Africa and Nigeria.

In the home countries, Islamists must also make a decision.  Are they with their home country, in the existential fight against radical Islam or are they with the enemy?  If the latter, then they must be imprisoned - yes whole families interred.  You, as an Islamist, cannot live in the USA, UK or France etc., and burn the flags of those countries or spit on its soldiers.  You cannot declare certain areas as alcohol-free or forbid people to have dogs or women to walk around without a hijab.  These home countries and their traditions existed ever before you did.

Immediately, the oxygen of publicity must be deprived to Islamic organisations, the Muslim Council in the UK and CAIR in the USA are at best, just apologists for their murderous co-religionists.  They place an equivalence on the actions of these barbarians with those of the West  They insist on applying the laws of the host countries when it suits them, while all the time trying to impose Sharia law.

Immediately, any of the ISIS fighters, from western countries, that return 'home', must be imprisoned.  They must be taken out of circulation.

Immediately, the 'hate' legislation that exists in so many countries must be applied against these people that would threaten our very existence.  They may not all be prepared to be front-line 'fighters' but they support, with their hate-filled words, the elimination of Western ways.    There is a 'hands-off' policy linked to the failed  multi-culturalist policies that the West has adopted, which exempts Muslims from the application of law.  This has to stop.

Immediately, the Palestinian boil needs to be lanced.  The Abbas regime in the West Bank must be issued with an ultimatum.  Either you accept the right of Israel to exist or we (the West) will immediately cease all aid and impose a blockade to starve you into submission and we will fund opposition to Fatah, that does want peace.

In respect of Gaza, a similar ultimatum.  Either give-up the ISIS like Hamas terrorists or face the brutal consequences of your continued intransigence.  You have to decide if you want war or peace but know that war will be total and Gaza flattened!

The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron has talked of a generational struggle against this poisonous ideology and other politicians are coming to realise the battles that must be fought.  As said earlier though, this isn't about the traditional 'West'  This struggle affects India, China, Latin America, Africa and indeed, all of the world.

Who are you with?

Syria again

Following on from my recent post.

The British media seems dumbfounded that the House of Commons voted against British participation in any military intervention in Syria.

Let me help them understand.

Firstly, there are all those memories of Iraq and the sexed-up dossier.  Sadly, the UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, wasn't the only person to lose his life over this.  100,000's of Iraqis lost their lives too.  As did UK, US and troops from other nations.  And still the heartache continues for the Iraqi people.

Linked to the above, the most oft-cited criticism of the 2003 invasion was the lack of any coherent plan for the next stage.  Everyone wanted rid of Saddam Hussein but no one gave thought to what or who would replace him.  The Iraqi people are still suffering the effects.

Ordinary people in the UK and US (overwhelmingly opposed to intervention, polls suggest) know, that without some kind of plan for the post-Assad era, then the current regional instability will only increase.  The business author/guru has one of his Seven Habits of Successful People as 'start with the end in mind'.  I can't believe that the aim here is just to remove Assad.

I suspect that the people of the UK also have two over-riding thoughts on Syria.

Yes the pictures and events are truly horrible but what is it to do with us?  Why should the UK get involved?  The US sets itself as the 'world's policeman' so let them stick their nose in, keep ours out!

Secondly, why should the UK spend money it doesn't have, interfering in another country? Such interference will only lead to negative consequences for the UK economy.  The UK simply cannot afford to intervene - financially so.  How can we spend millions on bombs and jet fuel while preaching the need for austerity at home?  If there are millions of £ to spare, how about putting that by and giving it back to taxpayers?  Or, since government simply chokes on the idea of reducing taxes, how about paying out to people suffering from fuel poverty as a result of idiotic green policies?

I think that it comes down to that.  I don't think that most people look to the regional instability that is now in play and the tremendous uncertainty that we all face, as a consequence.  Perhaps they do see Syria as the proxy war battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran but the questions remain - what is this to do with the UK? 

There are of course humanitarian reasons to intervene but these reasons have prevailed in many other places and the West has closed its eyes.  I think though, that this time the scales have fallen from the eyes of the UK people and, fortunately from the eyes of UK parliamentarians.  

Oh and I won't be misled (and I suspect neither will the British public) by so called American intelligence reports.  These presumably come from the CIA?  The same CIA that couldn't protect the US Ambassador and three fellow Americans at Benghazi, Libya, last September 11? 

Ask yourself this.  Suppose that there is military intervention - we know this will only involve bombing or missiles - how will the interventionists ensure only the 'guilty' are targeted?  Then ask yourself, what's next?  I don't have the answer and I suspect that neither do our so called leaders.