Cameron and the vote on Syria - delighted to lose?

The UK Parliament voted against military action against Syria.  This is being presented as a defeat for Cameron and Hague, his Foreign Secretary.

I wonder if that is so. Attacking Syria is a crackpot idea. It can only make things worse. Cameron and Hague know that. They have never shown any enthusiasm for getting Britain involved in Syria's civil war. I suspect they engineered a House of Commons defeat and after the vote would have been found skipping merrily about Cameron's office, delighted with the success of their cunning plan.

If they wanted to lose why did they even float the idea?  I think they had no choice brcause they were under pressure from several groups.

The Israel Lobby - Israel's supporters give a lot of money to the Conservative Party. Were there threats that the money would be cut off if the UK did not join in an attack on Syria?

Profiteers - people who made a lot of money from Iraq and Afganistan and now need a new war.

The Blimps - people who think they are living in 1913 and believe that Britain's prestige [and their dicks] will be shrunk if we don't join in any war that is going.

Saudi Arabia

I think Obama is under pressure from pretty much the same people and is equally unwilling to do their bidding, but cannot afford to openly defy them. I think he was so taken by Cameron's  cunning move that he decided the try the same trick. Can you think of any other reason why he should have suddenly decided he needed a vote from Congress before starting the war?

I suspect he is now praying that Congress will give him the thumbs down.

No comments: