In his summary of recent military history, to
substantiate his argument that "dropping bombs is politically cosmetic", Simon
Jenkins surprisingly faile to mention Hitler`s attempts to "blitz" Britain into
submission (The dangerous delusion of drone bombs,18/09/15). The
Luftwaffe failed, and all the subsequent attempts to bomb the enemy "into the
stone age" in Vietnam and the Middle East have met a similar fate.
Indiscriminate bombing does not decrease resistance, nor the determination of
the victims to carry on. The fact that the enemy is prepared to drop a weapon,
from hundreds of feet in the air, which has the potential, not only to blow to
pieces women and children, but to miss any intended "targets" and hit hospitals
and schools, only ever increases hatred, and the desire for revenge. Jenkins is
right to be sceptical about the accuracy of British bombs which have "killed 330
Isis fighters" but "no civilians". What does Fallon take us for?
Another argument against bombing of any kind,
but also against the "boots on the ground" idea, which Jenkins favours, is that
the usual justification given for violent jihadism is the foreign policy of the
west, with its repeated invasions, interference and killing. Paddy Asdown
recently asked how can we expect to destroy Isis "by killing more Muslim Arabs
with Western bombs", but the same can be asked about western intervention of any
kind.(Cameron`s refugee plan is pathetic - as is his military
one,08/09/15). Whatever happened to diplomacy? Is Syria really, as Jenkins says,
"none of Britain`s business", when such a mess was made of the area in
the post-war settlement of 1919?
The solution has to be found diplomatically,
not militarily. Does anyone really think that killing every jihadist will solve
the problem of Isis or Al-Qaeda?
No comments:
Post a Comment