Desecration, Desecration, Desecration

I'm surprised,  but not all that surprised, by the lack of attention paid to the Mail on Sunday's major story on Sunday, the account of the desecration of Commonwealth War Graves, and of a cross, in a cemetery in Benghazi.

Video footage of this miserable event, shot by the perpetrators, is easily found on the web.  It raises profound questions about the Libyan revolution which our government did so much to help. Yet the news did not dislodge the liberal media's unrelenting obsession with backing pro-Saudi Islamist rebels in Syria, or their other preoccupation with destabilising the Putin government in Russia, and seeking stoke a 'colour revolution' against it.

It should have done, as it raises the precise question which these campaigns ought to raise – will what follows be better than what it overthrows?

Well, better for whom? By the way, I must stress here,  to remove any doubt,  that I am genuinely sure that most Muslims are as repelled by this episode as I am. I   think that they would view the destruction of gravestones and the smashing of a Cross just as I would, as disrespectful to the dead, wounding to the bereaved and in general despicable. The disturbance of the dead is taboo in any serious civilisation.

But back to the question, better for whom?

These revolutions are presented as being good news for the people of the countries involved. Well, this I doubt anyway. I have seen enough violence to know that a revolution, whichever side you are on, is terrifying to anyone with a home, children or elderly relatives (whom you know to be in danger, but whom you cannot protect),   damaging to anyone with productive work ( as they are unable to do it) and filled with uncertainty and lawlessness (as it puts on the streets young men with guns who, once armed, will be very hard to disarm and who will be free to pursue private vendettas or fanatical causes once they have triumphed).

I wouldn't wish a revolution on anyone. But those who cheer on these events often claim to be acting for 'humanitarian' purposes.  They are preventing supposed massacres or escorting humanitarian aid, or some such. And people are often fooled by this. No 'humanitarian' would have stoked up the conflict in Syria, it seems to me, which began without violence but which has somehow acquired arms and a belief that the 'something must be done' lobby is going to bring about a NATO military intervention. I have already explored the reasons for this. I believe that many now dead would be alive, and many now maimed would be whole, had outsiders not encouraged these fanciful beliefs and (I suspect) shipped weapons to the rebels).

The truth is these revolutions are pursued by outsiders with foreign policy objectives. They don't really care about the people of these countries. They care about overthrowing governments which are not to their taste and which obstruct their foreign policies. I think this is how war is fought. I tremble to think that, if this country ever acquires a government concerned to defend its own independence ( not much of a danger now, admittedly), similar methods will be used against it. In a small way, when the technique was only partly developed,  this did happen in Northern Ireland, where a campaign of lies and disinformation about British policy and behaviour, very successful among the American public,   secured the triumph of the IRA over the constitutional government. Imagine how it would have gone these days,  with speeches at the UN (and commentators on TV networks) accusing the British government of 'killing its own people' (quite how this is so much worse than killing other people's people, I am not exactly sure).

What the desecration in Benghazi shows is that , while the Libyan government may have been overthrown, to the satisfaction of whatever foreign policy interests support the 'Arab Spring', Libya is a worse place than it was before, even for the dead. If the media really cared about Libya, they would recognise that was important. As it is, they (mostly)  mention it but quickly pass over it.