My response to Jeremy Corbyn’s request for my views on Syria:
I think that Jeremy Corbyn is a moral coward. He wants the prerogative of the harlot down the ages, power without responsibility, but he cannot have it. To govern is to choose. And, although sometimes the only choices you have are bad ones you still have to choose. If he cannot accept that then he must ask himself what is best for the future of the Labour Party. As Tony Benn once said, no one is bigger than the party.
We are engaged in combat with ISIS in Iraq, therefore, we are at war with them and they will not exempt us from any future attacks, just because we are bombing them after our help was sought by the Iraqi Government and, only given, after a vote in the affirmative by the House of Commons. ISIS has declared war on all who do not share its narrow, intolerant interpretation of Islam. They strike out as easily at co-religionists, with whom they disagree, as they do those of other faiths or no faith. ISIS destroys our shared history and culture, when not selling it for hard cash, without a qualm.
If Corbyn really wants advice from me, rather than my joining his claque, I would suggest he put down a reasoned amendment that, whilst Labour will not support the extension of air strikes in Iraq to Syria, Labour will support British military forces replacing French troops operating under the flag of the United Nations (and, if appropriate, in France’s Overseas Departments and Territories) so that they may be redeployed where they may do the most good. We would then, as Corbyn has himself promised, be providing practical support to the French Government. Moreover, Labour would support the despatch of naval units and auxiliaries to the Eastern Mediterranean to support humanitarian aid activities as well as the deployment, where possible and appropriate, of UK land forces, in particular, medical, logistics and catering troops to assist, support and protect those providing help to refugees.
The Leader of the Labour Party should be looking to find a way to unite our party around a series of actions that are more than a gesture and that will make a difference to the men, women and children, who are, as I type, being killed, maimed, tortured, raped, forced to change their faith or die, sold into slavery or sent out in the world with just the clothes on their backs by ISIS.
I think that as every day passes, Jeremy Corbyn and a fair few of his supporters, particularly those not part of the Labour Party, display a frightening lack of emotional intelligence. Their seeming lack of concern about the plight of the victims of ISIS is only exceeded by their view, that no matter how hard the Tories make life for their fellow citizens, it is better to have a principled and unbending, but unelectable man leading the Labour Party than someone who is electable, but in their opinion unprincipled, at the party’s helm. Someone who, after the next General Election, will be able to begin to reverse the damage of 10 years of Tory misrule. I do not want to have to explain to voters after the next General Election that Labour losing for its principles is somehow a better outcome than putting their interests first and winning in an ‘unprincipled’ way.
Who set up Corbyn and his claque to have the final say that no loaf is better than even a few slices? A Prime Minister, born into the working class, once said, you may keep your principles shining bright and not get your hands on the levers of power or get them a bit tarnished, get your hands on the levers of power and do something (for the condition of the working class). I share that sentiment. Does Jeremy Corbyn, who comes from an affluent, middle class background, do too? And, if he does not, why does he thinks he speaks for me and my family, that he may include us in his definition of our people?
The ramblings of a former DWP Civil Servant ... 
So perhaps he should take a leaf from Blair’s book and go charging in ? And didn’t that work out well – effectively creating the vacuum that ISIS have exploited.
Or we could have gone charging in when Cameron first wanted to… and would have found ourselves on the same side as ISIS !
If Corbyn stands for a new kind of politics, then maybe that means not continually repeating the same old mistakes. If that’s moral cowardice, maybe we need more of it.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if a condition of voting for war was that every MP who did so would be given a gun and sent out in the vanguard ? Of course I’m sure they would still all have the courage of their convictions in the face of actual danger…
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment. However, as nowhere in my post do I call for anyone to charge in I must assume that you thought up your response without reading it thoroughly.
For the benefit of your education, a moral coward is someone who lacks the courage to tell the truth, to accept responsibility, to demand accountability, to do what’s right when it’s not the easy thing to do, to clean up his or her own messes.
I contend that Corbyn lacks the courage to accept responsibility. He cannot go 50:50, Phone a Friend and/or Ask the Audience every time he runs into a spot of bother. He also lacks the courage to do what is right when it is not the easy thing to do.
Oh and his clique of Corbyn’s Chums is no better than Tony’s Cronies, in fact, it is worse, because Corbyn and many of his supporters trade on his principled approach to politics being his unique selling point. His nepotism with regards to his son rather undermines that.
Hear, Hear to Calls for Corbyn to Sack the SPADs! http://wp.me/p4nKAS-RK
And I agree with Hilary Benn:
The case for a stronger United Nations to protect & keep the peace – Hilary Benn http://wp.me/p4nKAS-RX
Do you? Or do you prefer blindly posting clichés instead of thinking before you comment?
LikeLike
My response to JC’s question regarding Syria. You obviously won’t like it.
As I have previously stated, the propaganda on Syria has obscured the reality. As a Middle East State, Syria, like Libya and Iraq, was targeted by the US and British governments for “regime change” for no better reason than to undermine relations both economic and political, between Russia and China and to disintegrate the region into smaller “more manageable” states that could be bullied into submission by the US and EU allied Imperialistically motivated governments. There is no merit to bombing Syria when Russian, Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah efforts are, as an organised TEAM, successfully driving the existing forces of IS back and in many cases such as Raqqa almost obliterating their presence. No solution will work unless Turkey and Saudi are forced, by the UN and the nations whose vested interest is the removal of Assad to which end “moderate” terrorist have been employed and deployed, (by the US in particular) to stop their support of the Wahabbi/Salafist Sunni terrorist groups which make up al Qaeda and Shabhat al Nusra and many other minor terrorist groups as well as IS of Syria/Levant. The UN has declared that there is no such thing as “moderate” terrorists, because, quite simply, a “terrorist” is just that and all are equally repulsive to decent people. The UN proved the Sarin gas attack on Goutha could not have been committed by Assad but was the work of the opposition forces, even commissioning a report: http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/possible-implications-of-bad-intelligence.pdf which Obama misrepresented in his September address to the UN. For the government of the day to assume that the public have been dumbed down by the lies we are spoon fed daily by opportunistic and corrupt mainstream media when so much truth and fact is available from sources in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Turkey-ministers of which have announced their complicity in the support of IS-:(Turkey’s daily Zaman reports), Saudi, Qatar and other Wahabii/Salafist emirates, is quite insulting to the “uninformed masses”. Qatar’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the leaders of the International Union of Muslim Scholars drafted an open letter, stating that they “share a positive attitude towards the Russian Federation, which supports the Arabs and Muslims today.” Moreover, the letter states “that the fate of Bashar al-Assad should be decided by the Syrian people themselves”. This coming from the man who leads the very militant terrorist group of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is in response to a request by Putin for redress under UN Article 59. If fear of reprisals from an Internationally convened court can achieve this from such a monster, then this is the way we should be going – not egotistical adventures from war hawks, the blow back of which cannot be “second guessed”, adventures I might add, which could cost the lives of British military personnel AGAIN. Blair may yet end up in the Hague, as he should, for his illegal activity in Iraq. Such a decision surely, should be representative of the wishes of the British people, or are we to be ignored again as Blair did in 2003? We, the British people made it quite clear in 2005 that the Labour Party DID NOT represent the people and many still will not vote Labour because of his actions. Any further involvement from Britain(and the Syrian’s DO know we have been supporting the terrorists who have bombed them as can clearly be seen on the F/B and social media sites)will have consequences. So is the Prime Minister going to make an announcement that if terrorists have a problem with Parliamentarian decisions made supposedly, on behalf of the British citizenry, “ please target those responsible and not innocent civilians”? His answer of “we’re all in it together” will not sit well with the victims, since that particular lie has been well and truly exposed. We must ask for a UN Special Convening sitting of ALL UN members to get this IS crisis resolved since a great number of UN members states will be affected. That is the only sane and right option that should be under consideration, not further displays of MP’s inflated notion of potency in the war arena to feed war hawk egos.
LikeLike
Blah, blah, blah … Wherein your post may I find any practical measures to alleviate the suffering of the innocent men, women and children on the receiving end of the ‘merciful’ attentions of ISIS? Measures that would help them in the here and now not at some, as yet, undetermined date in the future.
Read my post carefully, as I have your own, I do not support the extension of Royal Air Force bombing to Syria. Clear enough for you now? Or would you like to do a Corbyn and go 50:50, Phone a Friend and/or Ask the Audience? Incidentally, would you insist on a unanimous vote for action in the United Nations General Assembly or would you accept a majority vote? The Permanent Security Council of the UN adopted UN Resolution 2249 (2015) without dissent and with complete agreement. The Permanent Members of the Council are China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The current ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly are (with end of term date) Angola (2016), Chad (2015), Chile (2015), Jordan (2015), Lithuania (2015), Malaysia (2016), New Zealand (2016), Nigeria (2015), Spain (2016) and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2016). I stress the point that the ten are elected to the Permanent Security Council by the members of the General Assembly in order to represent them at times such at this. You seem to be proposing the sort of gridlock much favoured by politicians on Capitol Hill.
The Labour Party has always sought to speak up and fight for the underdog. Corbyn is failing to do that. And, you Sir, are exploiting the actions of ISIS to, I hope this will not offend or upset you, shamelessly pursue your own political ends. Where is your humanity when ISIS is killing, maiming, torturing, raping, selling into slavery or sending out in the world with just the clothes on their backs, innocent men, women and children. They are even forcing them to change their faith or die. And, I gather they also have a very robust policy with regards to members of the LGBT community.
I note “We, the British people made it quite clear in 2005 that the Labour Party DID NOT represent the people and many still will not vote Labour because of his actions.” Who are you, whom am I, for that matter, to say we speak for the British people? Incidentally, the British people elected a Labour government in 2005 so, on balance, unlike you, they must have felt domestic issues, like unemployment, outweighed matters of foreign policy. In saying that, even now, 10 years later people will not vote Labour, because of the party’s actions over Iraq in 2003, you are saying that the price of a 10 year Tory Government is well worth paying to strike a pose. Where is your humanity, when it comes to all those suffering daily, in the United Kingdom, at the hands of David Cameron?
Some may have forgotten, others may not know, but the Labour Party is an internationalist, not a nationalist, socialist party. When one of our greatest leaders, possibly the finest Foreign Secretary of the 20th Century, said, “I’m not going to have my people treated like this” he was referring to the Nazis persecution of Jews and fellow trades unionists. We will not, we should not, let our people, the victims of ISIS suffer, without seeking ways to end their suffering. There are alternatives to bombing from the air or endless talking shops.
LikeLike