UK Commits to Less Welfare, More Warfare

Michaela Whitton | ANTIMEDIA | July 16, 2015

What’s that noise? It’s the U.K. drums of war beating.

Less than a week after George Osborne’s emergency budget declared a war on young people, Britain suddenly has enough funds to re-consider a bombing campaign in Syria.

David Cameron visited U.K. drone base RAF Waddington on Monday, backing up his commitment to spend more on drones, spy planes, and special forces—which, according to the latest terror hysteria, is “vital in keeping us safe.”

The use of British drones began in Afghanistan in 2007.  More recently, drones and Tornado jets carried out over 70 strikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq, also providing support for the Iraqi army and Kurdish Peshmerga forces. So far in Syria, U.K.  drones have been limited to a surveillance role.

“As Prime Minister, I will always put the national security of our country first. That’s why it is right that we spend 2% of our GDP on defence because this investment helps to keep us safe. It has only been possible because of the difficult decisions we have made to ensure a strong and secure economy.” David Cameron said on Monday.

Let that sink in.

The difficult decisions he is referring to must be the £12 billion worth of welfare cuts, literally hounding Britain’s poor to death.

But do not despair, Cameron wants to make sure Britain is safe in a ”very dangerous and unstable world” and is convinced Islamic extremism is at the root of the problem. He plans to make sure Britain has the equipment to deal with the threat at “its source.” Oh no—not that old sketch! We are all familiar with Britain’s exemplary record of dealing with threats at the source, namely, the mass destruction in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

A study produced by the RAND corporation clearly outlines that aerial interventions do nothing to stop terrorist organisations and are more likely to escalate conflict. Since when does dropping bombs make the world a safer place? The hypocrisy of Britain contemplating air strikes on Syria while arming countries like Saudi Arabia—the largest exporter of extremist ideology and mercenary fighters in the region—is mind blowing.

In messy, cruel wars that have no regard for civilian casualties, the West could be  engaging in diplomacy and humanitarian aid, working towards alleviating suffering on a longer term scale. Instead, the aim seems to be to get the public to buy the idea that dropping bombs on other sovereign countries will protect U.K. citizens from “terror.”