The message that has just been sent to Assad & Co is that a surprise attack will be launched on their strategic targets in a fortnight's time. Very helpful.
Recent weeks seem to have demonstrated an interesting shift in constitutional perceptions. Decisions about initiating military actions have always been for the executive to make, in democratic countries (as well as in all non-democratic ones too, obviously). A prior majority vote in the legislature has never been a prerequisite of action. Suddenly in UK, France and USA a prior favourable vote in Parliament/Assembly/Congress, although not strictly a constitutional requirement, seems to have become a necessity as a matter of practical politics. Thus in any future conflicts, it will become politically difficult for any future leaders to commit to action without a vote first. This will tend to mean that the element of surprise will be wholly sacrificed, and making military preparations will be made more difficult. The consequences are not easy to foresee, but I fear they may include more drawbacks than advantages in the long term.
So, interesting now isn't it. Seems we are back to being the US's closest friend. Let's assume for a moment that the US votes against sending their missiles or whatever into Syria in what is an internal civil/religious war.....what will the French then do???? Back out as well of course. Can't see them going it alone can you? It seems to me that the standing in the world of the UK has increased over this as a beacon example of how democracy should work. If heads of state of democratic countries can take their country to war against another country against the wishes of the people, then they are acting just like the dictators of non-democratic countries of this world. Democracy take a bow.
I am not sure that advanced warning is much help against a barrage of cruise missiles. And sitting in Syria waiting for the attack might give them time to ponder their sins.
Pete - the invasion of Iraq was illegal - in simple terms - because any invasion of a sovereign country purely for the purpose of achieving regime change is prohibited under the UN convention. Tony Blair lied to parliament about the threat from Iraq, and he lied about the purpose of the invasion. The reason that the invasion took place before the UN weapons inspectors had finished their job is because Blair and Bush both knew for certain that there was actually nothing there to be found ( proof ? nothing has ever been found in all the years since ) and needed to invade before that fact became blatantly obvious. Lord Goldsmith was quite comprehensively "leaned on" to provide legal backing for the invasion. If there was no doubt about the legal position why did the MoD top Generals refuse to move until the government had provided an assurance that no British troops would be prosecuted for war crimes if the participated ?
So you choose to ignore completely all the finely-sliced legal arguments set out in the opinion, and simply make broad unsupported assertions about "illegality" and about the facts. Fine, if that's what you want to do. But after careful study of this and other opinions (including the Royal Navy's legal opinion), I prefer Peter Goldsmith's position.
Finely-sliced arguments bearing a more than passing resemblance to sophistry ... vs clearly understandable motivations as borne out by subsequent events ... Hmm, how to choose between the two? Surely legality is defined by more than simply saying, "It was legal"?
If you read Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack about the Iraq war, it becomes patently obvious that Bush was determined to have this war - and this before 9/11. He asked for plans to be drawn up and then started mobilising troops. Once this was done, and assurances made to the Kurds - whom the US had left high and dry and ready to be massacred after Gulf War One - the US were going to attack whatever anyone said. It is wrong to think that they were looking for WMD. They hoped they'd find them to give them some justification a posteriori, but they were going to have their war come what may. The climate means you can't keep troops just hanging about in a desert. You have to get on with it. It's a good book. I suggest people read it, if you really want to know what went on. Blair was committed to help Bush. As fellow God-squadders, they both felt that their voices were calling to them to get rid of the heathen. He bent the truth to get the result he wanted. Mind you, Saddam unwittingly gave them a hand by being deliberately ambivalent about his "chemical weapons". This was part of maintaining his position of power. He didn't want to appear whiter than white, because being the dangerous guy kept him in power in his murderous country.
Living in the Eastern Fens, from past experience when the military low flying night flights increase to the level they are just now some one’s going to get it...
The Lake District has been remarkably quiet from military flying for some time, I assumed they were all away doing it for real.
Why would they want to practice flying in heavy rain mixed in with low cloud if they're going to the desert?
Frankly I think its just better to let the Islamic world beat shit out of each other until they figure themselves out. Our interventions have never helped anything has it. After all we royally fucked it up after WW2 and have continued to fuck things up. Best just to leave them to it. Its way too complex and a thankless task. One day they will realise secularity is the only way governance can provide them the religious 'freedom' they all crave.
I fully understand all the people who say "We can't let this go on. We have to DO something" and it is all credit to them that they think like that, rather than with indifference. The whole question is, do what? Is lobbing missiles and bombs at people helpful? Or would some diplomacy with China and Russia to try to get them on board and apply pressure to Assad not be more helpful? Ah, maybe, but a lot more difficult than just pressing a button. And maybe, economically less attractive (for Halliburton, Blackwater et al).
