So after seemingly everyone enjoys a good posture on not intervening in Syria to show how sophistamacated they are, the following questions may present themselves.
1. Does anyone think it's a coincidence that it's the same UK political system which can't articulate a coherent stance on European Union membership is the one that can't mobilize a coherent position on Syria? It's UKIP's foreign policy now.
2. Does anyone think that the de facto policy towards regional messes implied by the new conventional wisdom -- let the neighbours sort it out -- has any success stories to hand? Somalia? The Democratic Republic of Congo? Or cases of regional great power vetoes on intervention, like North Korea?
3. Does anyone really think that Europe can wall itself off from an Afghanistan in the eastern Mediterranean, which is where Syria is headed?
4. Does anyone really think that Bashar and Maher al-Assad are more likely to head to the negotiating table if there's no western intervention?
UPDATE: We didn't think the UKIP aspect would this literal!
1. Does anyone think it's a coincidence that it's the same UK political system which can't articulate a coherent stance on European Union membership is the one that can't mobilize a coherent position on Syria? It's UKIP's foreign policy now.
2. Does anyone think that the de facto policy towards regional messes implied by the new conventional wisdom -- let the neighbours sort it out -- has any success stories to hand? Somalia? The Democratic Republic of Congo? Or cases of regional great power vetoes on intervention, like North Korea?
3. Does anyone really think that Europe can wall itself off from an Afghanistan in the eastern Mediterranean, which is where Syria is headed?
4. Does anyone really think that Bashar and Maher al-Assad are more likely to head to the negotiating table if there's no western intervention?
UPDATE: We didn't think the UKIP aspect would this literal!