Share |

Friday 18 March 2011

Only Mad Dog Gaddafi and Cameron go out in the Libyan Sun

I was hoping that Russia and China would this evening block the quixotic idiocy about to be unleashed by the Prime Minister, but alas, this hope proved to be unfounded. These two key permanent members of the UN Security Council abstained over the vote which has now been passed 10-0 in support of employing “all necessary measures” excepting a ground invasion “to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”. Still, perhaps it will be in their favour, because it will hasten the terminal decline of the United Kingdom and thereby bolster their international geopolitical influence.

As our planes could be enforcing a no-fly zone within hours, there are a number of questions that must be asked. What key national interest does the UK have at stake in Libya? The answer is quite straightforward: we possess no such interest in Libya. As Kelvin Mackenzie rightly noted on Question Time this evening, if we are to use military force against Libya, then why not against Bahrain and Saudia Arabia? Why not against Zimbabwe and numerous other states that we find disagreeable and which maltreat significant sections of their populations? Rational answers came there none, for there are none. The UK’s armed forces should be employed exclusively to protect our territory and our people. There may have been a case for an air strike against Libya in the immediate aftermath of Lockerbie, but there is no such case today.

The UK and France have stepped forward to proffer their air power in the first instance. Is this a case of senile former great power sibling rivalry? What are our respective governments doing? What do they hope to achieve? Are they really viewing the Libyan civil war through a grossly distorted, simplistic and moralistic prism? Do they seem to think that this is an unambiguous Manichean-style conflict between the forces of good and evil (i.e. Gaddafi versus ‘democratic’ rebels)? What denouement do they foresee? I see a swarm of Libyan refugees being given succour in the UK and France, swelling our hostile Islamic colonies and becoming a permanent unbidden and resentful presence. Do I see a stable Libya functioning as a Western-style liberal democracy? No. No I do not. I do not pretend to see anything, but I do not believe for one moment that the majority of the Libyan people are ‘just like us’ and ‘want the same freedoms as us’. Some will do, but most of them probably will not, and will instead cleave to the atavistic barbarous appeal of a Shariah-based state.

Do I wish Gaddhafi well? No. Do I wish the rebels well? Some of them, undoubtedly; others, certainly not.

The stance of the Conservative-led government with respect to this intervention demonstrates that something has gone deeply wrong with our foreign-policy establishment. From Blair to Brown, to Cameron and Clegg, the thread is unbroken; their foreign policies are seamless: military interventionism, globalisation and sovereign surrender to the EU and other transnational agencies. The leading lights of our governing parties are but the UK’s arm of an ugly, unresponsive and unaccountable globalist oligarchy. The time has come to kick them out. Only democratic nationalism can bring an end to this rot. There will soon be a viable political alternative, but in the interim, what further travails must we endure at the hands of these out-of-touch fools who dare to see themselves as our governing class?

As Iraq finished Blair, so shall Libya finish Cameron.


  1. 'The West' is probably after the oil by establishing control over the region, and going about some liberal 'humanitarian' posturing into the bargain. It always puzzled me that Iranian and Kurdish refugees were allowed to come here even though the US/UK invasion was over in a few days and the source of the purported justification for asylum ( Saddam Hussein) had been deposed. Yet, still they came. Given this, indeed I agree that are likely to see yet another islamic deluge when the imposition of the no flight zone has the inevitable effect of re-kindling this civil war jsut as it semed to be being put out by Gadaffi.

  2. Yes, the example of Iraqi and Kurdish refugees, as well as Kosovan Albanians, is instructive. Quite why they remain makes no logical sense. A combination of immigrant advocacy groups and anti-national 'human rights' legislation has prevented their repatriation.

    Presumably, just as the aforementioned economic migrants (classed as refugees) were settled in a number of our towns which had previously escaped 'enrichment', the same pattern could well be repeated. Midsomer Norton might therefore not be able to shield itself from a hostile minority presence in future.

  3. We are not the world's policeman.
    Does China get bothered about matters in the Middle East? No.
    And neither should we.
    They need oil just as we do but after all this has settled down they will get it and we wont.


  4. Quite right LP. The idea that we should have any grand foreign policy role now strikes me as anachronistic. I thought that this lesson was supposed to have been learned following the Suez Crisis, but perhaps those in power, not having been born at that time, have forgotten this particular lesson of history? We are a middling power of middling means which can gain nothing through militaristic posturing on the international stage, particularly when considering that the government actively discriminates against its own indigenous nationals at home. The situation is farcical.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.