Another Parliamentary man-child exhibits petulant hysteria over Syria fallout

It seems there is no limit to the capacity for self indulgent hysteria among some Parliamentarians as they throw infantile hissy fits about that Syria vote.

Rather than pause and reflect on the shortcomings of their arguments, they revert to petulant jibes at those they believe betrayed them in their effort to project military power without a defined objective to a known or predicted effect.  Leading the tantrums is the pompous former Tory minister, Malcolm Rifkind, who is quoted in the Mail on Sunday.

So distraught is Rifkind about David Cameron’s defeat at the hands of Labour and 30 Tory backbench rebels, he has suggested the refusal to intervene in Syria will result in a perception of British weakness around the world, risking another invasion of the Falkland Islands.  Into the bargain he takes a swipe at Miliband in an effort to paint him as weak on military action, when he said:

This will not affect our determination to defend the Falklands. But that had better be made clear to the Argentinian government – especially by Mr Miliband.

Such a comment is preposterous.  There is no similarity between Syria and any potential Falklands conflict with Argentina.  It evidently does not follow that refusal to use British military power in Syria without a clear objective and required effect, means we would not use military power to known effect to achieve a clear objective in defending the Falklands.

Moronic comments such as Rifkind’s are the consequence and by-product of life inside the Westminster bubble.  As an isolated gene pool that breeds within itself weakens and degrades, so it is that tightly controlled and limited sources of information, along with self reinforcing bias confirmation, narrows minds and results in comparatively uninformed and disconnected political leaders.

All of which explains why moral outrage was the sole driver of the desire to attack Syria and there was no consideration or knowledge about whether such an intervention would have a humanitarian effect or harm those who were supposed to be protected by it.  There are times when intervention and military action to a defined outcome are necessary and appropriate.  This is simply not one of them.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner gets some dentures

The people of Argentina are suffering as inflation and a badly run economy, caused by decades of maladministration undermine their society.  But as always the interests of the people are not the same as the interests of the people.

Ask the people of Argentina how they think somewhere in the region of £145 million of their money should be put to use and you won’t find many who would suggest buying military aircraft.  But nevertheless, that is what Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her government have just chosen to do.

As if that were not bad enough, what the gobby old girl from La Plata has chosen to spend the money on is buying a fleet of 20 Mirage F1 fighter jets from Spain, built since the 1970s and recently decommissioned by the Spanish Air Force.  In fact, despite modifications and upgrades, so old and lacking in capability are these jets the nickname the pilots had for them was ‘La abuela’ or the Grandmother.

With Argentina stepping up its false claim over the Falkland Islands along with its efforts to impose a de facto economic blockade of the islands, some see the acquisition of these Mirages as the de Kirchner administration attempting to bare its teeth.

That is certainly the hype-fuelled take of the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express (which puts the purchase price at a mere £10 million) who immediately try to paint this as a threat to Falklands territory and link the Spanish sale to the dispute over Gibraltar.

But given these aircraft are little more than museum exhibits, the modern aviation equivalent of a musket, the only thing on show are a new set of Argentine dentures.  Not that the cor blimey British media, with its ‘powerful reputation for accuracy’ understands.