For those of
us with memories of Empire, our own and others, why Britain is so anxious to
send the might of our RAF, or at least the few old aircraft we can manage, into
action in Syria is a puzzle. Syria was
strictly a French patch and had been for a long time.
This merry song from the past, "Partant Pour La
Syrie" is a reminder. It was the
unofficial "hymn" of the Second Empire of Napoleon III, aka Louis
Napoleon, 1808-1873, elected President of the Second Republic 1848-1852, self
appointed Emperor, 1852-1870 when busted by the Prussians, and died in
Chislehurst, Kent.
His only son,
also Louis Napoleon, died in South Africa in 1879, in action against the Zulu's
having attached himself to the British Army to gain the military experience he
felt necessary to attempt a future coup in a divided and fractious Third
Republic. He is buried with his father
and mother in the Imperial Crypt
at St. Michael's Abbey, Farnborough.
The 1919
Versailles Treaty after World War One, made it clear who was who in the Middle
East and in the interest of everlasting peace France was allocated spheres in
the Middle East, confirming Syria among them.
This is a century ago and a lot has happened since then. Until the end of World War II, Britain and
France were rivals in the Middle East.
The end of
that war and the creation of The Fourth Republic brought the realisation that
they were going have to work together at least and preferably agree if they
were to retain any real power or influence.
The demands of the USA and the activities of the Soviet Union were a
threat but there was increasing unrest in the Middle East and Iran for many reasons,
not least the creation of Israel.
The emergence
of Gamal Abdel Nasser as dictator in Egypt and bidding to be leader of the Arab
world became a sudden and real challenge.
"Something had to be done" was agreed between France and
England with talks and ideas of plans and this was spurred on by the
nationalisation of the Suez Canal in 1956.
There are full
Wikipedia pages on The Suez Crisis, Operation Musketeer and General Hugh
Stockwell, the general commanding the Anglo-French forces if you want the full
picture. I have my own vivid memories of
that period. Essentially, the alliance
cooked up a military intervention intended to take over in Egypt. The trouble was what was best militarily did
not suit the politicians so Stockwell
had to put up with key strategic decisions being made by them.
The troops did
well enough in spite of the difficulties but it was something of a botch
job. But that was less than the half of
it. When they went in the world reaction
was adverse and serious. So much so that
given a pending Presidential election, the USA ratted on them. I know that it had been well aware of what
was up, stood aloof and then cried shock horror when it happened.
In the summer
of 1956 Stockwell turned up at our HQ to talk to our GOC then Major-General John
Winthrop (Shan) Hackett. He had
commanded 4 Para Brigade at Arnhem in 1944 and was a, maybe the, leading
Parachute expert around at the time and a friend of Field Marshal
Montgomery. It was a private
conversation with no notes taken.
He appeared at
the door of the office I was working in under the impression it was the
General's. I explained to him in the
kind way I had of dealing with generals who did not know their right from their
left that it was the other side of the staircase and produced the very Top
Secret file on Operation Musketeer for them.
My own reading
of it had been a source of wonder in that knowing something of the history and
geography of the area it did not make entire sense in terms of a number of
issues. At the end of the meeting when exiting Stockwell was heard to say
"It's a bxxxxrs muddle but we'll have to make the best of it."
Around three
weeks later the G3(Int) and I were packed off with a squadron of signals, a
company of The Cameronians and a squadron of The Royals to kick up signals
traffic on the banks of the Elbe. I now
know, rather later, that this was probably a caper for GCHQ checking out the
Soviet's in East Germany.
You will
understand from all this that when Cameron et al talk about going forth into
Syria and the rest, I am a little nervous and an old twitch starts up. It is whether or not the result may be
another set of blunders and unintended consequences that could be very
damaging.
The Suez
Crisis was a game changer in which we had to accept and deal with a very
different world and one where we were not welcome in many places for many
reasons. Now ISIS etc. are indeed a very
nasty group and despite small numbers have been able to cause extensive
problems.
So where are
the money, the backup and the arms coming from?
We are proposing to strike at the districts in which ISIS do have power
and that must mean both civilian casualties and perhaps a protracted
campaign. We really need to hit hard the
supporters. But these are people who
trade with us and own much of our property.
We need them
because of the level of our debts and liabilities, let alone the inevitable
cries to "do something". There
are choices here that are very difficult and complex ones and if we are serious
about checking and stopping ISIS it is going to take a lot more than
bombs. Because these forms of extremism
have always been latent in the Middle East.
Now they have
been armed (French guns?) and financed putting down these groups will be well
removed from our ideas of human rights and fair play. Similarly, dealing with those sent into
Europe to commit terrorist acts will be difficult. It is a mess, Stockwell in 1956 used the term
current then, what we might say now is not the same.
But the mess
is a lot bigger and more complicated than we are allowed to think. Emperor Louis Napoleon III was involved with
Britain in the shambles of the Crimean War in which neither party appreciated
the importance of basic logistics.
There were
errors in Italian Reunification; then the fiasco of The Second Mexican Expire,
see Wikipedia and the painting "The Execution of Maximilian" by
Eduard Manet in the National Gallery, followed by rapid defeat in the
Franco-Prussian War again with bad logistics.
Perhaps on his
way to a long weekend in the Cotswolds, David Cameron might take time out for
reflection at The Imperial Crypt.
Prince Charles blames climate change for the Syrian mess. It is easy enough to dismiss him as a loon but some high status people presumably advise him.
ReplyDeleteI hope Cameron has better sources of information and analysis but I'm not confident.