Category Archives: USA

Syria

Before Donald Trump got elected to be American president last week and caused generation snowflake to go apoplectic I started to pen a letter to Theresa May on Syria. Well what a surprise but Mr Trump seems to have the same views as me on this subject. Perhaps he should elect me as his advisor!

Looking at the headlines in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph we see that Mr Trump is taking the line that we should be more alongside Russia in their Syria policy rather than helping the Syrian ‘opposition.’ I would have advised the British government to take Trump’s line ages ago, even before this present conflict started. We might have saved ourselves an awful lot of trouble, notably perhaps some of the massive migrant flows into Europe which are now destabilising the continent.

Under Assad Syria was a reasonably stable entity up to the recent conflict. Indeed it was perhaps a bit of a beacon for the Middle East where Christians and Yazidis were free to practice their faith and basically protected by Assad. How many Middle Eastern states can you say that of? Admittedly Syria was no western liberal democracy but is was not a bad imitation of being the least worst option in terms of decent government in that part of the world. Again Assad might not be your favourite uncle who you’d look forward to having a pint with down at the ‘Dog and Duck,’ but he understood a little better the threat that Islamic extremists posed to his country and would have a little more clue than the west about how to deal with them. I daresay his opponents have one language for Europe and another for the Middle East, it was ever so.

So what I am saying is perhaps let’s help Assad deal with these opponents of his rather than doing everything possible to oust him from power, because I venture to suggest that what we will get in his place will be far, far worse. Shades of the Shah of Iran anyone? Thank God David Cameron lost his vote in the Commons in August 2013 to take military action against Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, fuelled I seem to remember by his wife’s Syrian experiences. I think a few angels hanging around in the chamber that day may have whispered in some MPs ears which way to vote. The least worst option in the Middle East is often to help some of these regimes stay in power for a modicum of stability, cue Egypt, Libya and so on, rather than indulge in regime change. Bit of discernment needed here of course as you can’t make it a rule for every situation, but I think we should be very slow to get involved in the Middle East unless it directly affects our interests and there is overwhelming clamour for these countries for our help. We would get more support from the Middle East if countries there knew that their people had begged us to help them dealing with intractable situations.

So I am somewhat aghast at the latest rumblings from the government that Mr Trump should be persuaded not to get too close to Russia on this issue. To think that the whole government machine, the Cabinet, the Foreign Office and all those advisory civil servants will be busy trying to persuade Mr Trump not to support Mr Assad, that’s our taxpayers money folks. It won’t be the best start to a new relationship with our strongest ally.

I can’t help thinking that most of Mr Assad’s opponents in Aleppo and elsewhere are of the ‘bearded extremist’ type who will behead you or worse if you can’t quote a couple of ready verses from the Koran in case they query your Moslem credentials, and are busy constructing the worldwide caliphate beloved of militant Islam. Why we should be supporting such people I have no idea. We should be doing everything we can to wipe them from the face of the earth if it comes to military conflict. There is huge concern about how people are suffering because of the Russian/Assad bombardment of Aleppo, but this is where the US and UK could perhaps bring a little more finesse to the campaign with more precision targeting of the real enemy.

If Mrs Clinton had got in we would be cosying up to her as she pulled full steam ahead with her Syrian policy, perhaps arming the opposition more? No fly zones? A bit of sabre rattling in Putin’s direction? It would only need one or two near misses between Russian Migs and American F35s or Her Majesty’s Tornados in a no fly zone and we could see the start of World War 3, not something the liberal west wants to wake up to as it munches its raisin flavoured porridge in the morning.

Sure, Putin is no angel and may be a leader geared for war, but it sure is wiser to accommodate the Bear rather than poke it with a great big massive stick, especially in the cauldron of the Middle East. This is why I think we have a little less clue than Trump’s pending administration, so I bow to my American cousins on this issue. I by no means condone Putin’s authoritarianism and some of the ruthless actions of the Russian state machine, but in Syria it might be a case of holding your nose to help the Russians destroy ISIS. After all, in the Second World War the Soviet Union and  US were fighting on the same side. Perhaps the Brits can join them to help out.

Meanwhile I must finish my letter to Theresa May. But what do I know compared with those armies of civil servants in Whitehall?

Link

The world is in a bit of a quandary over the American elections. I said earlier this year that Brexit and a Trump victory in the US will be better for the world if they happen, and I stand by this. Just a few thoughts however from an Englishman who has been through Brexit.

I in no way condone Trump’s past behaviour or attitude to women, his outrageous statements on various groups Iike Mexicans, or his intemperate remarks on a range of issues. There are all sorts of reasons why people would not want to vote for him, and these are just some of them, just as there are many reasons why people will not vote for Hilary Clinton. The highest level of character and integrity are what you look for in a national leader, yet here we have two candidates with serious flaws, they do not measure up to want you want to see in a national leader. Many people will not vote for them because they refuse to give their vote to people they see as morally or spiritually bankrupt. That is their right, although I believe the stakes are so high that those people should still vote, including the significant bloc of evangelical Christians some of whom particularly disapprove of both candidates. You could say that Trump and Clinton are a symptom of the state of the nation rather than a cause. American society has produced two such candidates and they are merely a reflection of what America now represents. Just as in the U.K. we say we get the government we deserve.

l still say that there is a bigger picture at work, things will be difficult for America with either Trump or Clinton, but Trump I believe is the lesser of two evils. Again I see Trump as a Cyrus figure, a wrecking ball or bulldozer meant to smash the establishment and expose corruption, including the powerful hold of political correctness on the American authorities and especially the Democratic party. At least he stands for some conservative values, control of borders, slashing tax rates to encourage business, protection of the American Constitution and a realistic attitude to militant Islam. On the other hand Hilary Clinton is a hard left candidate who represents open borders, a hemispheric common market, continuance of the entitlement mentality, destruction of the Constitution and a dangerous appeasement towards militant Islam, as well as social transformation with the further pushing of dangerous agendas like partial-birth abortion and the transgender movement. Then we have the email debacle, the evidence of corruption in the Clinton foundation which has taken money from regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In essence Hilary represents a party that is totally on board with the agenda that is speeding the destruction of western civilisation and destroying anything left of our Judeo Christian heritage.

Supreme Court nominations is another issue. Presidents get to nominate new Supreme Court justices and once they are in they are in for life. Hilary Clinton will ensure hard left candidates for those roles. At least Trump is more likely to appoint conservative judges. Presidents only get eight years maximum, Supreme Court justices are there for life unless they choose to retire or resign. This means they have the ability to remake massively the social and political landscape of America over the long term that a president would never achieve. If Clinton wins, expect judicial activism and a liberal totalitarian social agenda on a grand scale.

Trump has already referred to this as a Brexit election and to some extent he is right. The same forces are at work to a degree. People are fed up with the downgrading of any cultural or historical sense of nationhood, they are tired of the mass migration that is fast changing the nature of our societies, and they are very wary of the policy of allowing so many Moslems to migrate to the west. If Trump gets in, just as with Brexit, it is a sign of the revival of the nation state which has been so inaccurately caricatured in recent decades. People want their own country with a sense of pride in its nature and traditions, and there is nothing wrong with that. They don’t want a globalist agenda imposed upon them. It was inevitable that a pushback would take place, a sign that there is still some backbone left in the west.

One characteristic that defines Trump whatever you say about him is that he has courage. Courage is perhaps the most essential and the most rare commodity in western society today, courage to speak the truth without fear or favour. Too many in the west have been intimidated by a spirit of fear, which stops them from saying what they think. We need leaders who will tell it like it is, before it is too late. Unfortunately too many leaders fit the mould of what is an ‘acceptable’ politician these days. Trump has broken that mould.

The other thing that could be in Trump’s favour is that if he gets a good team around him this will mitigate some of the potential disasters that people anticipate. It won’t be a one man band. Cool heads planted around him can provide a healthy siphon for any excess. The outlook is positive on this front as you see men like Mike Pence, his running mate, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, trusted generals, some decent conservative leaders around him. Trump can’t do it on his own, a strong team around him will bring stability. He would be wise to recruit those who can get the job done.

Also don’t believe the polls! We have learnt this in the UK both with last year’s General Election and this year’s Brexit vote. Both results were unexpected and leave some faith in democracy against those who argue that elections are rigged. I was up all night at the Brexit vote witnessing the vote count and it is heartening to see the order and level of professionalism displayed in running the count, although it was an area of the country not likely to see much voter fraud! Whether you hold your nose and vote for him or you are a die hard Trump supporter, I still predict that he will win. The alternative in my opinion is frightening, it could spell the end of America as we know it. Just look at this video to sum up Trump’s role as a wrecking ball: