“Lord Richards reportedly told author Sir Anthony Seldon that the prime minister had in 2012 rejected a ‘coherent military strategy’ to take on the regime of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, which would in his view have seen the Islamic extremists ‘squeezed out of existence.'” It seems fanciful that taking on the Islamic State’s enemy, Assad, would have “squeezed” the Islamic State “out of existence,” but it is manifestly true that David Cameron lacks the courage and vision to take on the jihad threat in general, and is instead following a disastrous policy of appeasement and accommodation of Islamic supremacists that is going to result in nothing less than the ruin of Britain if it isn’t stopped.
“Too often it seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.” No doubt about that.
“David Cameron lacked ‘balls’ to head off the rise of Isis, says former defence chief,” by Frances Perraudin, Guardian, August 30, 2015 01.06 EDT
Last modified on Sunday 30 August 2015:
David Cameron lacked “the balls” to take the military action in Syria that could have prevented the rise of Islamic State, a former head of the armed forces has said.
In a scathing analysis of the UK prime minister’s approach, Gen Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said Cameron’s approach seemed “more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft”.
Lord Richards reportedly told author Sir Anthony Seldon that the prime minister had in 2012 rejected a “coherent military strategy” to take on the regime of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, which would in his view have seen the Islamic extremists “squeezed out of existence”.
The comments are detailed in Seldon’s biography of Cameron – titled Cameron at 10: the Inside Story 2010-2015 – which is being serialised in the Mail on Sunday.
Lord Richards, who was chief of the defence staff from October 2010 to July 2013, is quoted as saying: “If they had the balls they would have gone through with it … if they’d done what I’d argued, they wouldn’t be where they are with Isis.
“In Ukraine, as in Syria and Libya, there is a clear lack of strategy and statecraft. The problem is the inability to think things through. Too often it seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.”
The House of Commons voted against military action in Syria in 2013 and parliamentary authorisation has so far only been given to UK airstrikes against Isis in neighbouring Iraq.
But Cameron and the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, made clear they were considering extending the military air campaign to Syria in the wake of the Tunisian beach massacre on 26 June, which claimed 30 British victims among the 38 dead….

Alarmed Pig Farmer says
A few things pop into my mind when there is public criticism of the West’s policy towards the New Caliphate:
1) Military force would work only if a high degree of collateral damage and deaths is accepted. When Col. Ollie North and Gen. Jack Keane talk on Fox RINO about how it’s stupid to not send in troops to go after Caliph Ibrahim’s troops, where would the troops go exactly? The ISIS Mujahidin are spread throughout the Moslem populations in the Levant. Bombing a training camp would be straightforward, but the Caliph would just move them to more inconvenient locations in population centers. Moslems naturally accommodate Jihadis, even if they don’t like having them around. The only way for the “it’s so obvious” plan touted by Col. Ollie and Gen. Jack is to bomb wherever we want, and send in divisions to fight door-to-door.
2) Why all the focus on America and England? Where are the Swedes, the French, the Canadians, the Norwegians, the Germans, or for that matter the Russians and Chinese? Are these countries happy to let us do their dirty work for them for free, and do the more stupid countries (China, Russia) support the Global Jihad out of short-term geopolitical convenience? That will have very nasty long term consequences, but Putin and Xi seem to be listening to dial tones.
3) We are at war when it’s convenient (NSA surveillance, budget proposals, etc.) but we’re not at war when it’s inconvenient (lawfully declaring war against a named enemy, as is required by law, cutting a deal with Iran with no provisos for stopping missile shipments to Hizbullah and their support for terror operations, etc.).
Which is it? Are we at war or not? If we are at war, who is the enemy?
JIMJFOX says
“stupid countries (China, Russia) support the Global Jihad ”
Unmitigated rubbish! China deals with its Uighur problems
with merciless force; AFAIK, not a single terrorist attacker
has survived China’s military retribution.
Russia has had the nightmare attacks in Beslan and the
Moscow theater; it fought a savage war to suppress
the Chechen Muslim terrorists in Grozny.
Both have done far more than the Obama administration
with it’s itty-bitty campaign against the ISIS JV Team.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Unmitigated rubbish! China deals with its Uighur problems…
Yes, we’re all aware of that. But more important than harsh dealings with a small minority located in the remote Xinjiang Autonomous Region is Red China’s deep relationship with Iran, which features transfer of advanced weapons technology from Beijing to Tehran.
voegelinian says
More specifically on the collateral damage problem: The reason there would be unusually high collateral damage is because so many fucking ordinary Iraqi Muslims Who Just Wanna Have a Sandwich also support ISIS.
Peggy says
China and Russia are taking care of Islam where it counts and that’s at home. They are not taking in millions of them and having the sponge off their tax payer like the west.
If the west did the same thing then it wouldn’t have a problem.
BTW, Russia and China don’t have to take any refugees in because they didn’t attack ME in the first place. So if the US and the rest of the western wold want to live in peace then they should not be starting wars with these people in the first place. Leave them alone and let them kill each other.
Godwin says
Stupid Westerners, do not blame China n Russia. This ISIS problem was created solely by u fellows for getting rid of the dictators like Saddam Hussain n Maummar Gaddaffi, who had very strong hands in controlling all these extremists. U created this evil, so let u carry them n do not let others share your evil burden with their hard-earned money n precious lives.
YOU REAP WHAT YOU HAVE SOWN.——– A UNIVERSAL LAW.
mortimer says
Pig Farmer is uninformed about 62 member coalition against ISIS. Some of the countries in the coalition are United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Iran, Portugal, Japan, India, Philippines, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Albania, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, South Korea, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Sweden, Taiwan and Ukraine.
He should consider doing some research before going off half-cocked.
Peggy says
Kosovo is not a country. It’s a Serbian province which was illegally separated with the help of US air strikes. They are not recognized by the UN or EU. About half of world countries have recognized them and most because of US pressure but institutions such as UN and EU have not. So Kosovo being a country is debatable and they don’t have an army so how could be possibly participate in anything like what you said?
Michael Copeland says
“We are at war”, said London 7/7 bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan.
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6716-we-are-at-war
RonaldB says
“It seems fanciful that taking on the Islamic State’s enemy, Assad, would have “squeezed” the Islamic State “out of existence,”
Let ‘s see. General Lord Richards criticized Cameron for not having destroyed the one effective enemy of the Islamic State, the government of Syria. Lord Richards, who laments the lack of clear thinking in the government, observes that if the Islamic State’s enemy had been taken out of the fight early, the Islamic State would not have been able to spread.
Sounds to me like Lord Richards should win the Darwin award for increasing the intelligence of the British government by taking himself out of it.
JIMJFOX says
At least SOMEONE with credibility is standing up and calling out
the UK Government’s sick appeasement of Islam.
WHO in the USA political system is doing anything similar??
voegelinian says
No doubt Lord Richards also believes that once we help the Muslim People take out Assad, they will be so grateful to us, they will mass-democratize and Praise Britannia.
Fred M says
I get the logic: in 1939 the French and British should have invaded Poland to stop Germany and Russia doing it!
voegelinian says
Good analogy, but we should keep in mind that helping Assad is helping a Lesser Evil who, unlike Poland, is evil. But when fending with Muslims in a strategy of Realislamik, one will have to make deals with Lesser Devils in order to weaken the overall Camp of Islam. Of course, the West isn’t anywhere near thinking in these terms yet; and likely won’t begin inching toward such a policy until after about 500,000 Westerners are mass-murdered by Muslims in a series of terror attacks over the next 50 years or so.
Peggy says
How about not invading anyone and only band together if one of us is attacked. The army is primarily for defence of a country not to go and invade other countries.
Jack Diamond says
“O Americans and O Europeans…you will pay the price as you walk on your streets, turning right and left, fearing the Muslims. You will not feel secure even in your own bedrooms…we will strike you in your homeland.
“You (Muslims) must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit (rebels against Allah). Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them..if you can kill a disbelieving American {or European, Australian, Canadian or any citizen of any country in the coalition} then rely upon Allah and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.
“If you are not able to find an IED or bullet, then…smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him. Do not lack. Do not be contemptible. Let your slogan be ‘May I not be saved if the cross worshipper and taghut (ruler by manmade law) patron survives.’ If you are unable to do so, then burn his home, car, or business. Or destroy his crops. If you are unable to do so, then spit in his face. If you are unable to do so, while your brothers are being bombarded and killed, and while their blood and wealth everywhere is deemed lawful by their enemies, then review your religion…because the religion cannot be established without ‘wala’ (loyalty to believers) and bara’ (disavowal of unbelievers).”
“Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling. Both of them are disbelievers. Both of them are considered to be waging war. Both of their blood and wealth is legal for you to destroy..the only things that make blood illegal or legal to spill are Islam and a covenant. Blood becomes legal to spill through disbelief. So whoever is a Muslim, his blood and wealth are sanctified. And whoever is a disbeliever, his wealth is legal for a Muslim to take and his blood is legal to spill. His blood is like the blood of a dog; there is no sin for him in spilling it…”
–Letter from Islamic State spokesman Abu Muhammad Adnani September 21, 2014
“We will burn America. The dream of the Americans to have safety became a mirage, today there is no safety for any American on the globe…(9/11) that blessed incursion was a fatal blow…here its America now losing billions still to make sure their country is safe…today the Mujahedeen are much more stronger and they have more resources than before. Thus they are able to burn United States again.”
–Islamic State video April 2015
We are being attacked, are under orders to be attacked, and will continue to be attacked.
The question is how we best respond to being attacked and protect ourselves, internally and externally, especially in light of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact we allowed Sharia to be embedded in the constitutions of those newly “liberated” governments demonstrated that we did not know what we were fighting for. Or against. Or have the wits to know that these conflicts are just part of the Big Picture in a war of self-defense by non-Muslims against a global Jihad (in which open combat is but one manifestation and not necessarily the most important).
Jack Diamond says
Quotes courtesy of Robert’s new book.
Angemon says
Peggy posted:
“How about not invading anyone and only band together if one of us is attacked. The army is primarily for defence of a country not to go and invade other countries.”
While I agree with your overall feeling, I woulds see nothing wrong with a preemptive strike, such as invading a country who boasts about invading and conquering my country, killing millions of my countrymen (and countrywomen), and ending my way of life as I know it, replacing it with a 7th-century set of rules under the guise of “morality”.
Jack Diamond says
He is not calling out appeasement of Islam. He is another example of the absence of Grand Strategic Thinking regarding Jihad, leading to the relentless March of Folly that is Winning Hearts and Minds and “freedom for ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East” (George Bush). Absence of Strategic
Thinking inevitably because of the absence of knowledge and understanding of the Enemy. Across the Board and across the Pond.
“Britain must stop “sleepwalking” and prepare to tackle Muslim extremism as seriously as it planned for the Second World War, Lord Richards has warned. Lord Richards told an audience he would be “most surprised” if Britain did not enter into combat within the next five years, warning ISIS must be defeated through “effectively military intervention”.
“Lord Richards, patron of the Armed Forces Muslim Association, emphasised that he did not believe there was anything in the religion of Islam to encourage extremism, but that “0.1 per cent” of followers had been drawn to a cause and organisations they consider “successful”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11694144/Lord-Richards-We-need-to-approach-Muslim-extremism-as-we-might-approach-World-War-Two.html
RonaldB says
If we get sucked into another fuzzy war in Muslim countries to bring representative government to Muslims, we’re screwed. Afghanistan and Iraq were extremely costly, and were counter-productive. Also, allying ourselves with one faction or another in the incessant Muslim wars opens us up to claims that we should provide refuge to our allies, who would be slaughtered if left in the country.
One nice feature of Muslims is they cannot get along with anyone, other Muslims especially. So, the best way to deal with the Muslim region is to support multiple countries, each with its own borders and interests that it jealously guards.
Unfortunately, we have have Presidents who were either moronic (Bush) or evil (Obama). Between them, they destroyed the entities of Iraq and Libya, and are well on their way to destroying Syria. This destruction paved the way for the Islamic State to expand.
What we have to do now is allow support to entities holding their own territory: Shi’ite Iraq, Kurdistan, and any others possible. Most important, under no circumstances should we allow Muslims to enter our territory, and any non-citizen expressing or showing support for the Islamic State should be immediately deported.
In sum, Muslims are not so far advanced technologically, that they can have a prayer in open warfare against a modern state. Their specialty is subversion and subterfuge. If we put boots on the ground to try to destroy a Muslim entity in a Muslim region, we’ll just exhaust ourselves to no effect.
Jack Diamond says
Can’t disagree with any of your points, especially “under no circumstances should we allow Muslims to enter our territory, and any non-citizen expressing or showing support for the Islamic State should be immediately deported”, that’s just the minimum you’d expect. Hugh Fitzgerald’s idea of declaring war, not against the “Islamic State” but against the Caliphate, any Caliphate, the idea of the Caliphate and its law, Sharia, which among other things requires subjugation (or killing) of non-Muslims–as a means for making laws of treason have teeth against the fifth column– might be considered. The Islamic State is going to be a dilemma because nothing short of a full-on American military response has the capability of ending it’s metastasizing (and they absolutely want to draw us into their “Dabiq”moment) and the continued attacks here and atrocities there will seem to compel it. So it becomes a matter of containing it (limiting its potential to harm, exploiting divisions among Muslim tribes & states, so far not so good, protecting ourselves with sanity regarding immigration and the fifth column) or trying to defeat it “once and for all” (but even defeating it, however that is defined, does nothing to end the caliphate, the jihad or the sharia behind it and succeeding it).
zulu says
OT
Terror suspects run up legal aid bills of hundreds of thousands of pounds to sue the Government… even though NONE of them are now in the UK
Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, Ibrahim Magag and a suspect who can only be referred to as CF all billed the government for legal fees after escaping Britain while under counter-terrorism control orders.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215858/Terror-suspects-run-legal-aid-bills-hundreds-thousands-pounds-sue-Government-NONE-UK.html#ixzz3kJkKHZcf
Truth Seeker says
Any Common man can see British Policies are No Way Against the Growth of Islamic Terrorism in Britain, but to grow Fearlessly. Many stands of the Government is Pro Jihadi Migrants.
Harry_the_Horrible says
The action that would have prevented the rise of the Islamic State would have been to support Assad or let the Sov, er, Russians support him. He would crushed “Islamic Spring” as it deserved, and gotten things back on track. No ISIS, no Al Qaeda.
But, noooooooo. The Euroweenies wanted their LNG pipeline through Syria. So they gave half-assed support to a “democratic” revolution by a people who will NEVER be capable of democratic self government. BRILLIANT!
RonaldB says
I agree with you completely, except that I have no knowledge of how the pipeline issue affected the decision-making.
Edgar Allen says
We need to explain that immigration “to save the poor” is a delusion. It is like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. The best visual model I have seen is by Roy Beck’s “Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs” video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
The other analogy we need to make is with animal hoarders. Animal hoarders can teach us a lot in how we think about immigration. Most of these hoarders start with good intentions, trying to save animals that they really care about.They end up in disaster, without being able to tell that anything is wrong. Many mental health experts think they suffer from delusion, or disconnect from reality.
From Wikipedia: “…. Evidence suggests that there is “a strong mental health component” in animal hoarding, though it has not been firmly linked to any specific psychological disorder.[47] Models that have been projected to explain animal hoarding include delusional disorder….
Google “animal hoarding” and select “pictures” and you’ll be amazed. Share some of these photos to make the point.
Share it and spread the word. The Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
richard courtemanche says
Most leaders lack balls. Where’s a Churchill when you need one?