It looks like our worst fears have been confirmed. On Thursday, MP’s voted to allow for more airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, despite the fact that airstrikes have not worked in the past, will not work in the future, and will only create far more problems than they will resolve. Suffice it to say, we’re on the cusp of another horrible war in the Middle East that most of us didn’t want, just like what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan, and once again, our leaders have used fear, propaganda, and shaky pretences to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent lives.
As could be expected, the news drew negative reaction from most of the public, perhaps the most profound sign of a nation disillusioned with a government that is apparently able to pay for war despite claiming that it can’t pay for public services such as the NHS. For me, the biggest problem is that they didn’t let us vote on it, but I have a feeling that if they did, Cameron would probably use the same trick to win the referendum that won him the last election – using cheap scare tactics to discredit his opponent and con millions of gullible Britons into taking his side.
Of course, any ignorant Cameronite will probably tell you that we’re bombing Syria in order to stop the terrorists in ISIS. That logic is not only absurd, but it sounds disturbingly similar to the nonsensical logic that led us to war in Iraq in 2003, and we all know that the war in Iraq was essentially just an American grab for oil and resources disguised as a mission to topple Saddam Hussein (we got rid of him, so why did we stay?), and it only led to further destabilization of the country. The only thing the new war in Syria will cause is further destabilization, and our government is blissfully unaware that destabilization is what ISIS wants.
Also, we tried bombing Syria before, and not only did that not stop ISIS, but it also helped to create the Syrian refugee crisis. France was already bombing Iraq and Syria since September 2014, and we all saw what came of that. After the massacre in Paris, France quickly responded by launching more senseless airstrikes in Syria, and it’s very unlikely that it worked. If anything, continued airstrikes against the Middle East will only produce more terrorist retaliation, all while more innocent people are killed by the hand of democracy.
None of us want the nation to be dragged into another pointless war that we didn’t even want, and yet not only did David Cameron insist upon bombing Syria, but he also believes that anyone opposed to the pointless, barbaric violence is automatically a “terrorist sympathizer”. Let’s see if I got this correctly. If I oppose the wanton destruction of innocent lives, am I therefore a terrorist sympathizer? I must have missed a meeting or something, but when did basic human decency become such a great crime in the eyes of our government?
I understand that the threat of ISIS needs to be dealt with, why should Britain be dragged into this? Our economy is already suffering because of David Cameron’s idiotic austerity measures, and now we’re going into another lengthy and presumably expensive military conflict that is almost guaranteed to do nothing other than destabilize the Middle East further, thus fuelling more extremism and continuing the cycle of violence, fear and barbarism just because a few wealthy individuals are bored with making our own lives miserable. Before we go on marching into conflict, perhaps we should think about how much we will suffer because of it, because our suffering is exactly what ISIS wants. If we have any hope of spoiling their plans for the world, we must not be so quick to violence, because they want us to respond with fear and hatred. In other words, if we give in to bloodlust, then it’s an ideological battle that ISIS may as well have already won. If we must fight, then we should at least have a plan, and I don’t think David Cameron is interested in thinking it through.