Options
Ex-Army head says David Cameron is to blame for rise of ISIS
The former head of Britain’s Armed Forces has blamed David Cameron for the rise of Islamic State, saying he lacked ‘the balls’ to crush them militarily when they first emerged as a threat.
In a scathing attack on Cameron’s record on Libya and Syria, General Sir David Richards, ex-chief of the defence staff, said the Prime Minister was more interested in pursuing a ‘Notting Hill liberal agenda’ than showing serious ‘statecraft’. Richards was backed by Britain’s spy chief, who delivered an astonishing personal slap-down to Cameron in a bitter Downing Street clash over Libya.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215566/Ex-Army-head-PM-blame-rise-ISIS-Damning-accusation-Chief-Staff-explosive-new-Cameron-biography.html#ixzz3kFErlvLw
Damning comments on Cameron.
In a scathing attack on Cameron’s record on Libya and Syria, General Sir David Richards, ex-chief of the defence staff, said the Prime Minister was more interested in pursuing a ‘Notting Hill liberal agenda’ than showing serious ‘statecraft’. Richards was backed by Britain’s spy chief, who delivered an astonishing personal slap-down to Cameron in a bitter Downing Street clash over Libya.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215566/Ex-Army-head-PM-blame-rise-ISIS-Damning-accusation-Chief-Staff-explosive-new-Cameron-biography.html#ixzz3kFErlvLw
Damning comments on Cameron.
0
Comments
Probably not true. ISIS comes from Syria's civil war . The Arab revolution would have hit Syria and started that without any western intervention. A minority Shia regime just wasn't going to control a Sunni majority forever - there had been revolts for years - Assad's dad killed tens of thousands . Syria's war was also triggered by demographic change and food shortages - as indeed was the situation in Tunisia and Egypt that preceeded it,.
The argument for arguing we created chaos in Iraq is that Saddam was maintaining conrtrol by being brutal enough. But that means accepting the brutality, and allowing minority rule for ever. Thats not going to happen as Saddam was mortal, and his sons were mad. At some point there would be a succession struggle, and the Shia are going to rise again. Its true Iraq provided manpower and base areas for ISIS ,but that wasn't inherent in the invasion - the problem was controlled by 2008, and it only came back after Obama declared victory and walked away.
Equally Libya was at civil war before we intervened. Tribal conflicts had already started. And this time its already wasn't controlled by Gadaffi - so we didn't even get to see the situation when he dies and his also suspect sons tried to take power.
The root cause is Saudi Wahhabism. Before IS there was the Taliban, Hamas, Al-Qaida, Boko Haram and Al-Shabab to name a few. Islamic State are just the latest incarnation of Islamic fundamentalism.
Seems to show us more about the people at the top of the army and secret service .
The argument its not in the national interest , its a humanitarian mission is a 2.2 argument at best . Humanitarian missions can be perfectly in line with the national interest - if you take a wider, or longer, view of it. They can set new norms, remove future problems, and keep deterrence credible- as well as save lives. Going with change is often more sensible, than standing back protecting the old order. The issue is what changes are desirable, and sustainable, and what make things worse. If there's a book waiting to be written - its about the perverse relationship between Blair, the Foreign Office and 6, and Gadaffi, and the terrible, opposite, advice that led to backing the fundamentalists in Egypt. The FO Arabists have a pretty terrible record of getting it wrong .
I don't understand Richards on Syria. There wasn't , and isn't, a majority in parliament , or public, for action against ISIS in Syria. When a plan was put together,with a dithering Obama, to force a negotiated solution in Syria, it was derailed by Miliband. No action was possible earlier - because Obama wished none. What on earth is Richard's talking about saying we should have crushed ISIS earlier? Did he advise sending troops in to Syria, as they left Afghanistan? What could a few do? They had just failed in Helmand because we sent too few of them, to a smaller area. Or did he suggest using the few RAF fighters, not tied up in Afghanistan, to bomb, what no one else was bombing?
Indeed, its also tribal and Sunni-Shia wars. There's plenty of mayhem before 2003. Assad's dad killed 20-40,000 fundamentalists in Hama , back in 1982. The Algerian civil war against its fundamentalists saw up to 150,000 dead from 1991 to 2000. The Iraqi Shia rose in 1991, and somewhere between 80 and 230,000 died. The Egyptian Moslem brotherhood has been shooting poeple and blowing things up since the 1930s.. The Lebanese civil war killed up to 150,000, from 1975 to 90.
They had elected a President to end America's wars - and he was obliging. He also wanted to be able to say he had achieved victory, and going was proof of that - so he went. He's also not disposed to dealing with iraq as it needed to be run - with US advisers ensuring its own leaders didn't upset the Sunni , and US troops maintaining the fighting capability of its army. Obama takes the US out of the equation, things fall apart, and ISIS moves nto the gap.
To be fair , the blame for Syria lies all over the place. Iran plays to win for the Shia and to maintain its missile bases near Israel . Turkey backs all sides, at some point. The Gulf states back the Sunni , with modern arms, that leak. Putin blocks any talks, and opposes anything the US might do. And the once Obama was prepared to act, to force a compromise solution, Miliband stopped him by stopping British support.
There are many other Islamic terror groups around the world which have NOTHING to do with Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Israel.
If more illegal immigrants are coming from Libya, it is NOT because Libya is a dangerous place and Libyans are fleeing there. Libya is used because it is close to Europe, ie Italy. People were attempting to come from Libya LONG BEFORE Gaddafi was removed.
From 2010.
But no, I dont blame him for the thread topic. I doubt he helped, little he does tends to help. I tend to find the country runs better from mid July till mid September when our representatives are busy not inventing stupid laws and regulations.
I await the sugar tax and plastic bag tax with the grim inevitabity of typically managing to get the person you'd least trust to run a bath, let alone a country, drag our country further down the league table of counties you'd wish to be born in.
We all know they were attempting to. They weren't succeeding in anything like the numbers we're seeing now, because the Ghadaffi regime was controlling it.
I'm wondering how much help Seldon got from the likes of Osbourne, May and Johnson. Because it reads like something straight out of the Blair/Brown wars, is Cameron being pushed towards the door before 2015 is even out?
You do realise not even Cameron thought he'd win the 2015 election, do you remember how much wriggling he did to avoid doing a Head to Head debate with Ed Miliband, trying to blame it on the broadcasters even?
He never did one remember, the only live debate he did was with Labour, LibDem, Green, Plaid, UKIP & Conservative.
LibDem Collapse, SNP landslide & the anti immigration UKIP votes are the only reason we are left with Cameron in charge - possibly with some anti Labour / SNP coalition fear in the Conservative heartlands, which tend to always vote blue in any situation.
He is a busted flush, he won predominantly because of the above, not because people thought he was a good PM.
Who knew generals could be complete morons?
So no blame is attached to the Saudi's and Qatari's who fund ISIS
No blame attached to the Turks who have allowed them full support and free reign through their land.
No blame on the UN for sitting on its hands
No blame of Milliband who effectively vetoed any British involvement in Syria.
No blame on any other country, just Britain.
Methinks this General harks back to the days of British Gun boat diplomacy and pink was the colour of the world map.
So are you saying that we SHOULD have taken military action in Syria? Or are you back to trawling the internet to find any criticism of the Conservative Party to smugly post on here?
Mr Cameron’s campaign to oust Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi was “half-baked” and it speaks of a rift between Mr Cameron and Barack Obama.
The book says Lord Richards has accused Mr Cameron of not having "the balls" to take action against Isil when they first emerged leading to their rise.
The paper reveals he told the author: "If they had the balls they would have gone through with it… if they’d done what I’d argued, they wouldn’t be where they are with ISIS."
Well whatever Cameron has or hasn't been doing it clearly isn't working.
There seems to be a stark contrast in what the media machine is feeding the masses and what is felt behind the scenes.
IHe speaks of a rift between Mr Cameron and Barack Obama and alleges the President refused to take his calls. We however are presented with an image of them being best of buddies.
The same applies to every Gulf state who didn't take action when the Yazidi were being evacuated from Mount Sinjar.
The Saudi's, Qatar, UAE and Jordan, not a single one them bothered to help Iraq when ISIL captured half the country. Saudi was a lot quicker to respond to Yemen though.
But like immigration or welfare suicides or everything else. This is nothing about the issue in the headline. It's about the OP's inability to see beyond the sensationalism and need to constantly attack the conservatives and get to the details and causes of what the given story is actually about.
No, it's about what the former head of Britain’s Armed Forces is saying and he has blamed David Cameron for the rise of Islamic State,
Well he did give them the weapons and the money, so erm yea.
Bingo !!!
Yep.
And also our support for the puppet sectarian Shia regime in Baghdad under Nour-al-Maliki, who now thankfully has gone.
He was the one that caused all manner of civil war against the Sunnis. It was only a matter of time before they rose and started to defend themselves from the Iranian-backed Shia militias.
And btw, who we're actually supporting even today.