The Blair Legacy

Well, I'm no military strategist. But I would think the Americans know a bit about it.

looks like the Israelis and Americans disagree on that

Let's hope they get it right if it happens.

It is not a risk that should be taken.

If they do not target the weapons dumps, then what/who do they target? People without a doubt - and who are the right people? And how do you target them? And should you?

The simple desire to avenge the atrocities is not enough.

I don't believe they would target the people.

I want the atrocities avenged.

front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

front page of the Indie

You don't have to target the people to hit them. They have a habit of getting in the way.

Yes. I know. It's hard.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/libyas-future-looks-bleak-as-media-focus-turns-elsewhere-8563076.html

We may have "won" in Iraq and Libya but the people of those countries certainly haven't. When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, we heard lots of stories about how life was so much better for the population there. Now all we hear is the almost daily body count figures.

There is also virtually no media coverage as to the present state of Libya, which has been described by some as "ungovernable". This article in The Independent suggests that Libya is in chaos but it seems there's a reluctance in the media to report what is happening there.

Now it appears that our own government has been less than careful about issuing licences for the export of chemicals.

I do not want the atrocities "avenged." I want the governments of the world to engage in rational and thoughtful debate about what action (if any) might produce the best outcome for the people of Syria and of the rest of the world.

As I've said before on another Syria thread, I do want the atrocities avenged.

I would like to see Assad brought before an international tribunal, charged with crimes against humanity, and punished accordingly. I really hope that happens.

Surely avenging a wrong is extra-judicial as it involves deliberately causing harm.

Fat chance of Assad ever coming before the ICC, bearing in mind that a) local vengeance will probably pre-empt any possibility, as with Gaddafi; b) if he were to be tried, Syrians would probably prefer to use the Syrian courts; and c) the US is not party to the ICC and Russia has never ratified its membership.

Now that the US forces are no longer involved in "combat operations" in Afghanstan, the Guardian has today reported that Afghanistan's police and army are losing too many men in battle. Casualty rates have regularly topped more than 100 dead a week according to General Joseph Dunford.

This is the first time that I have become aware that Afghan soldiers and police officers are facing death and injury on a huge scale.

Surely this proves the point that it's easy to enter into a conflict (however limited the reported objectives may initially be) but it can be very difficult to get out of it? The foreign military presence was viewed by at least some of the population as an invasion, and led to further radicalisation. Now that the US is no longer engaged in "combat operations", the Afghan army and police have the unenviable task of trying to keep order.

General Joseph Dunford is reported as saying that it may be necessary for western troops to stay in Afghanistan until 2018.