A war against ISIS would be savage and pointless

As I write, the national press is still obsessing about the recent massacre on a beach in Tunisia which was apparently committed by either a lone gunman or perhaps two gunmen.  This, along with other atrocities being perpetrated elsewhere in the world, is prompting many people to argue that Britain should send in ground troops to fight ISIS.

I make no secret of the fact that I am a pacifist.  I despise war, and consider that it is very rarely justified.  I want to make clear however that I also consider that a war against ISIS would not be successful.  In fact it would probably make the situation worse.

Over the course of the past fifteen years, Britain and the USA have been at war with Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.  Those countries have not improved as a result, and neither has Britain.  Those wars cost us billions of pounds and hundreds of lives.

How much money would another ground war cost us?  How many lives would it cost?  I don't know the answers to those questions, but I am certain that the war would not improve the situation, and would probably make it worse.

Some people are arguing that we could defeat ISIS if we had an outstanding leader, and Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill are among the names which are sometimes offered as examples of such a leader, but it is easy to idolise the dead.  Perhaps the people who suggest these names would also like to suggest - without being vague - what steps Reagan or Churchill would take if they were still alive and still in charge.

The problem we face has a lot to do with Islam, and I have written about Islam in previous posts, but arguably the greater threat is the New World Order.  At this point you might like to take less than ten minutes to watch this instructive video.

I have linked to this video in a previous post, but it remains relevant.

A few years ago, the British and American governments wanted to go to war to topple the government of President Assad in Syria.  The intention of the war was presumably to allow the New World Order to control Syria and its resources via a puppet government.   No other explanation makes sense.

The British parliament voted against the proposed war, however, and before long the national press was reporting the activities of ISIS.  As ISIS took ground in Syria and Iraq, the British parliament voted to go to war against it, although not to use ground forces at that stage.  Presumably the proponents of air strikes realised that air strikes would achieve nothing, and almost certainly make the situation worse.  That would then allow them to argue the case for a ground war.


It may strike the reader as highly convenient that ISIS was taking ground in Syria and Iraq at a time when the governments of Britain and the USA were looking for an excuse to go to war in that part of the world.  Feel free to search the internet using the words USA funded ISIS.  You might find links to some enlightening web pages.

Related previous posts include:
The three hostages
Emma and Chris are veritaphobic