On home soil, when an armed individual (sometimes in possession of explosives) creates a situation that puts lives in danger (hostages taken in a bank – say) we deploy trained negotiators and specialist units to use human psychology, and tactical subtlety, in a sincere effort to defuse the situation. Bravo us!
When something analogous emerges internationally, we announce pride in our armed forces and just how resolved we are to beat Johnnie Foreigner to a pulp (the only language he understands – it seems.) Why the discrepancy? Is it British racism? Or are we just a bunch of armed thugs . . .
Such situations are not new. Why have we no specialist unit for understanding Johnnie Foreigner? (Or, if we have, where is the evidence of its competence?)We were all over the planet like the proverbial rash, centuries ago. We did not lack contact, nor opportunity, to be ahead of the game. Are we fools or knaves? (In which box does arrogance snugly fit?)
Sadly, my forensic probing of Westminster ‘governance’ leads me to conclude that it throws up PMs who relish armed conflict; but only on foreign soil, and in countries who cannot seriously harm us.
The new reality of multiculturalism and mass migration has caught such simplistic thinking on the hop and, as said, our PMs have no competent department to address the new paradigm. Oh well: controls at home and bombs abroad. Probably good for the economy.