The bleating British sheep of all three major parties at Westminster have just handed Mr Cameron a massive vote of support for his Libyan military adventure with barely any proper debate and virtually no consideration, all eager to be seen supporting a politically correct “humanitarian” mission. The English Radicals would like to know – how do the British always find the money to wage war, whilst there is huge national debt? Do they have a special “magic sofa” full of pound coins down behind the cushions?  In fairness to Cameron, he cannot help himself – he is programmed from birth and upbringing to drag Britain into “gunboat diplomacy” at the drop of a hat, and by jingo, he'll make sure the money is found for this wizard wheeze, even if English citizens have to do without. 

The English Radicals suspect the Downing Street PR machine is behind this action – short, successful wars are like a shot of Viagra for a flagging government’s popularity - but we feel no case can logically be argued for such intervention, as it contravenes one of our most basic principles – that English servicemen should only be deployed in the event of a threat to the Realm, or in extremis a close ally with common cause. Libya does not qualify on either count, and should have been left alone to sort out their own affairs. That may sound harsh, but we would like to offer a strategic overview of the situation from an English Radical perspective.

Our opinion is that western support for the Libyan rebels is based on a gamble that Gaddafi can be toppled and a pro-western puppet regime installed in its place, who will keep us supplied with cheap oil (rest assured if Zimbabwe had oil, allied troops would have been in there years ago to liberate them from Mugabe – and their oil). But what guarantee do we have that any new regime will be grateful? The majority Sunnis are not known for such sentiments - the Taliban are Sunnis, indeed once Gaddafi's failed socialist experiment has run its course they are more likely to establish an Islamic theocracy than anything that resembles a western democracy.

Gaddafi is a bad man and no mistake, but he was also serving two very useful roles for the West, and Europe in particular – he'd stemmed the flow of African migration to the EU, and he kept a tight lid on any Al Qaeda activity, because of the totalitarian nature of his regime. However the Sinjar Documents held at West Point military academy show that the vast majority of known foreign fighters in Iraq have come from – who'd a' thunk it? - Libya! So obviously, in spite of Gaddafi's regime, militant Islamist sentiment is thriving in Libya, and unable to find an outlet there has found a ready home in that other roaring success of western “help” and intervention, Iraq.

So realistically, if Gaddafi survives the West’s attempt to replace him, won’t he be mad as hell and probably retaliate with terror attacks of his own on innocent western civilians? (virtually every town in England has Libyans working in pizza and burger joints, how many are “sleepers”?) – or, if Libya ditch Gaddafi, why would they be remotely interested in stopping African migrants heading north to Europe via Tripoli? Are they likely to adopt democracy with pro-western leanings, when as devout Muslims they are more likely to follow the path of Iran and instead become an Islamist state? If that happens, why would they object if Al Qaeda set up shop there to plan more jolly pranks like the Madrid, Mumbai or 7/7 London bombings? If an air strike hits the wrong target and innocent civilians are killed in any numbers (always a possibility if the Americans are involved), won’t Arabs and Muslims in England start demonstrating against the latest imperialist crusade, thus heightening racial tension and increasing the risk of terror attacks in England?

By attempting regime change in Libya, the British government are undoubtedly replacing an unfriendly neighbour with an outright dangerous one, and rousing even more Arabic/Muslim anger on our own turf. Good thinking Dave, well done! Sometimes not getting involved is hard but the smart thing to do, and it’s a pity that Mr Cameron - a man with no previous ministerial or armed forces experience prior to becoming PM - and his tame flock of war-happy British MPs, don’t consider the long term effects of their military actions on the people who will ultimately pay the price – the English public.
Add Comment