Turnbull on the Paris obscenity
Mr Turnbull made it clear that military action was crucial to success and signalled that he might consider more Australian troops being deployed there in roles such as peacekeeping.That sentence is a contradiction in terms as Peacekeepers enter the combat zone after peace has been declared, and that is not happening anytime soon. The ABC news say world leaders vow to destroy ISIS. Our guy says we’ll send peacekeepers. Embarrassing! Personally, I was disappointed that RAAF Hornets weren’t allowed out of their bunkers to fly alongside French Fighter Bombers in their missions overnight.
Dennis Shanahan talking about Abbott
His willingness to send troops to Iraq for training and fighter-bombers into Syria were of a piece with his view the US should do more in Syria to defeat “the death cult” militarily in the field, to stop terror attacks in Australia and elsewhere. Abbott’s view was that Daesh had to be destroyed in Syria and Iraq.And all Turnbull offers is Peacekeepers. Even civilians will understand that Peacekeepers aren’t the answer and that to win a war, and it is a war, the West need to destroy ISIS where they live. They need to destroy their lines of communications and their logistics. Find out where they are getting their AK 47/54s and destroy the factories. They need to track their finances, take the money and attack any nation that finances them and they need to close down their access to the internet. The West need to conduct all-out-war or suffer a litany of Paris events. Abbott’s view will prevail while Turnbull’s initial response will be hopefully forgotten as he gains some experience. Wishful thinking I know, but I’m trying to be positive. We need to stand with Paris, not pray for them. If you must pray then wait until we are burying ISIS troops and then pray for their souls to be eternally condemned.
“The West need to conduct all-out-war or suffer a litany of Paris events.”
That’s not what David Kilcullen advocates.
To quote his quarterly essay –
“Hence a critical counterpart to the “war strategy” to neutralize ISIS in Iraq is a peace strategy in Syria – to end the slaughter by convincing all players that they can’t achieve their goals through continued conflict, and that their best alternative is a negotiated peace. As in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, there may be a role here for the military, (specifically, air power): creating humanitarian corridors and no-fly zones, or inflicting sufficient damage on armed forces to force a ceasefire. But ultimately this is a political problem – and it will demand at least as much strategic effort and attention as the military problem in Iraq. (p328)”
He also has a bit to say on how the current mess was created –
“As I’ve explained, there’s plenty of blame to go around. President Bush conflated enemies, defaulted to attacking states rather than thinking about how to deal with non-state actors, and – mother of all errors – invaded Iraq, and then botched the occupation.
President Obama compounded Bush’s errors – pulling out without putting in enough effort to cement the gains of the surge, acting opportunistically in Libya, and remaining passive in the face of massacre in Syria.” (p230)
(From his quarterly essay No 58. Given that this bloke was influential in the only success that came out of the invasion of Iraq – the surge – I’d listen to him before I’d listen to the likes of Bolt or Abbott).
As an observation – if you really want something stuffed up badly leave it to the Yanks. They’re experts.
I’m with you Kev, and Abbott. These bastards need driving back into oblivion, no more namby pamby, no more talking about it. They will not negotiate, they don’t want to sit around talking peace, they want only want a world caliphate.
Let loose the dogs of war and finish them off, taking no prisoners.
Couple of interesting items from the UK Kev.
Neither of those worked. Most probably taken down because they didn’t agree with the Lefties
Try this one Kev.