Exceeding the remit

Ah, first The Arab League and now The Guardian. There was a piece by Jonathan Freedland earlier this week about why the military action against Gaddafi has recently exceeded its original remit and – sadly, for the world – he could no longer support it. During the article, he danced on the head of a pin for several hundred words, pausing only to quote from the leftish and clever human rights lawyer Phillipe Sands about the present illegality of action. How awful to have these people on your side during a conflict, those of who you stupid or forgetful enough to have wanted a conflict. These hopeless, confused, hand-wringing faux left monkeys would have been in favour of military action in support of Czechoslovakia and later Poland, but appalled by the unnecessary and unkind shooting of Germans. Our original remit in World War Two, remember, was not regime change. “We have exceeded our remit,” they would have whined, as the bombers set off for Cologne and Hamburg. Christ.

The main difference with WW2 is that back then, we faced an enemy which wished to annihilate an entire race, directly threatened us and invaded neighbouring countries swiftly and with immense brutality. That’s why – for those of you who insist upon drawing comparisons – I would have been pro-war in 38, while being anti war in 2003 and 2011. Still, you lot who supported military intervention – are you still hanging on, clinging to your judgment? Or do you think we have “exceeded our remit”?