WHY do successive British governments feel the need to take the lead role in international conflicts? Why can´t Britain for once just take a back seat? Prime Miniaster Tony Blair sent British troops into the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. British troops were also involved in small scale deployments to East Timor and other countries dotted around the globe during his premiership. Gordon Brown sent additional troops to Afghanistan and now David Cameron is pushing for military action in Syria following British involvement in the Libyan crisis. Infact Britain took a lead role, again. Britain is now leading the fight for an armed response following the use of chemical weapons (allegedly) in Syria. Surely, the time has come for Britain to take a back seat and allow someone else to be the prime mover? I would support military action against the Assad regime because the Syrian government appears to have carried out a war crime and needs to be punished. The international community needs to take action but Britain should be on the sidelines. If and when military action takes places the U.S. will take the lead role with Britain just supplying a single Tomahawk armed submarine. It is a token force but Britain seems intent of being the world player strutting the world stage like it did in a bygone era. Britain should support its allies and the decisions they make but also take a back seat.
A back seat
Also in Holiday
- New law for pet owners comes into force on Friday in Mallorca
- Investigation into the death of a British woman following cosmetic surgery in Mallorca
- Prostitution gang arrests in Alcudia, Inca and Muro
- Now Spain torpedoes all-inclusive cruise deals with extra booze and food taxes
- Mallorca fans see red over scantily clad dancers in VIP area!