The Dim-Post

November 17, 2015

Barely coherent thoughts on the west and war

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 11:04 am

I wasn’t planning on writing anything else on the Paris attacks. It is mostly a tragedy that will lead to other tragedies. But one of the side-debates has been around media coverage and global reaction to the attacks in comparison with the relative dearth of information about a suicide bombing in Beirut the previous day. This series of tweets has been widely shared:

th

And Max Fisher at Vox has written a great column pointing out that there was plenty of media coverage of the suicide bombing in Beirut, but that the harsh reality is that consumers of media simply don’t care about bombings that happen in places like Lebanon, but they care a lot about attacks in Paris.

This is true for me. I have this non-rational intuition that western cities like Paris are supposed to be safe, and terrorist attacks against them are horrific crimes that almost defy explanation. I think that’s a widespread attitude and all of the debate about whether the attacks were caused by refugees, or French colonialism, or that there’s ‘something’ wrong with Islam and/or that we’re involved in a big clash of civilisations are attempts to fill that explanatory void.

What’s odd about the debate is that France has been at war with ISIS for two months. Their air-force has been bombing them since September. I think France and other western nations can make a pretty strong moral argument for going to war with Islamic state – I’ll talk more about their strategy later – but when you attack a cruel terror state that is known for savage attacks against civilian targets, why are we so bewildered when they strike back against civilian targets? The day after the attack President Hollande declared that France was now at war with ISIS, and then launched retaliatory air strikes against the ISIS capital Raqqa in Syria. It seems a little odd to declare war against a state that you’ve been at war with for two months, and to punish them by bombing a city that France, the US, UK, Russia and Iran have been bombing for over a year. It is hard to imagine that many senior ISIS commanders were hanging around to get killed after launching the Paris attacks and blowing up a Russian passenger jet the day before. The attacks were almost certainly symbolic and pointless in military terms.

Western states like to conduct air-strikes. It is a very low risk way of waging war. Actually, western states rarely explicitly announce they’re waging war. Instead we engage in nation-building or peacekeeping or deploy troops or commit air-forces, or some other euphemism. For civilians in the west these are very low-risk activities, generally carried out through local proxy forces while we provide training or air-support. Which might help explain the confusion around motives for ISIS’s attack. Most western nations have been at war in the middle-east – or someplace else – for so long, with so little direct consequence we can basically just ignore it until suddenly we can’t.

It looks like the air-strikes/proxy force strategy is shaping up to be the solution to ISIS. The west will probably decide to support Assad and the Iraqi government in Baghdad in a campaign to recapture all of the territory claimed by ISIS. But ISIS is also a solution to a big problem, which is that there are millions of Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Syria that don’t want to be ruled by the Assad regime or the Shia government in Baghdad, both of which are just as cruel and murderous as ISIS.

If this happens it will be a great solution in terms of the domestic politics of the west. We can all go back to forgetting we’re at war until we get another horrific reminder, when we can all get angry and dumbfounded and confused again, and our leaders can look decisive by declaring war on whoever we’re already at war with and bomb something they’ve already bombed. But it will probably be the worst strategy in terms of the long-term stability of the region, and lead to a vast number of people being killed or displaced, albeit in places that people like me don’t particularly care about.

37 Comments »

  1. Russia and Iran support Assad, not the West.

    That reality may force Western nations to accept Assad won’t go immediately but that hardly equates to supporting Assad.

    What would you do if you were Obama’s position?

    Comment by NeilM — November 17, 2015 @ 11:23 am

  2. France was bombing ISIS in Iraq in September 2014

    Comment by Marco K — November 17, 2015 @ 11:33 am

  3. Kudos for admitting that you don’t care about the Middle East.

    France’s intervention in Syria goes back further than two months – they’ve been passing military aid to anti-Assad forces for two years now, and bombing ISIS for a year: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b2b9110-3fe8-11e4-936b-00144feabdc0.html

    Comment by kalvarnsen — November 17, 2015 @ 11:36 am

  4. The collapse of empires is rarely a tidy thing and there are so many dimensions to the conflicts in the Middle East – the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the rise of oil as a strategic resource, the impact of WW1 and 2, the collapse of communism, the fissure between Sunni and Shia, the rise of fundamentalist islam which sees the West as a unified entity and last and arguably least, the creation of Israel which increasingly provides a spark for both wider and narrower conflict. Trying to cram all that into an easily digestible form is ferociously tricky much less finding a coherent way to deal with the issues. I’m happy to be a keyboard jockey rather than a close participant. The only clear suggestion I have seen so far in the aftermath of Paris is that if you take away the state from the Islamic State they become just another collection of peripatetic terrorists. something the world has more or less figured out how to deal with over the years. How to achieve that is the much harder question.

    Comment by Tinakori — November 17, 2015 @ 11:38 am

  5. The solution that’s been advocated over the past few years by Obama, Hollande and others has not been to support Assad and the Iraq govt.

    They have quite consistently advocated the overthrow of Assad and have attempted to pressure the Iraqi govt to stop marginalising Sunnis.

    This all might not work but to say the West’s solution is what you claim Danyl is inaccurate.

    Comment by NeilM — November 17, 2015 @ 11:46 am

  6. Dude, we could go back to the involvement of Frankish nobles in the crusades, but how about just acknowledging the history of modern Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon . There’s a reason the fight is spilling into France.

    Comment by rsmsingers — November 17, 2015 @ 12:02 pm

  7. Western states like to conduct air-strikes. It is a very low risk way of waging war.

    Terrorism is an even lower risk strategy. It can easily be carried out for decades at a time and there will be no direct response.

    Comment by unaha-closp — November 17, 2015 @ 12:44 pm

  8. we could go back to the involvement of Frankish nobles in the crusades

    I’d be willing to wager that the perpetrators of these attacks would probably cite French involvement in North Africa as part of their reasons, too.

    Comment by Phil — November 17, 2015 @ 12:50 pm

  9. “Terrorism is an even lower risk strategy. It can easily be carried out for decades at a time and there will be no direct response.”

    What do you mean?

    Sometimes true, often not. Anti-abortion and white supremist terrorists tend not to get the response they want, but islamic terrorists? Have you not heard: ‘holy clash of civiliastions dude, these people clearly represent a cancer, have no rhyme nor reason and must be destroyed root and branch if only someone can work at how omg save us middle NZ/US/Europe has had enough and will demand a response’

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 17, 2015 @ 1:13 pm

  10. holy clash of civiliastions dude, these people clearly represent a cancer…

    Is this from Obama or Hollande?

    Comment by NeilM — November 17, 2015 @ 1:30 pm

  11. It would make realpolitik sense for the west to allow Russia to support Assad (and Iran to support the Shiite regime in Baghdad) without getting involved directly. Then we would be back to having efficient police states in the region that suppress any opposition, much as in 1990 when Saddam and Assad were in uncontested charge.

    Comment by richdrich — November 17, 2015 @ 1:46 pm

  12. It looks like the air-strikes/proxy force strategy is shaping up to be the solution to ISIS. The west will probably decide to support Assad and the Iraqi government in Baghdad in a campaign to recapture all of the territory claimed by ISIS.

    Sort of right.

    While there are definitely proxies engaged, a whole lot of fighting is being done by the SAA within their sovereign territory.
    Also in terms of the ongoing posture vis-a-vis Assad, a lot depends on Turkey and whether they’ll take a stab at occupying northern Syria under the flag of R2P (something they are trying to get tacit US support for) in order to continue their covert support for ISIS within a northern ‘no fly zone’.

    The reason that Kerry and co are desperately trying to broker a deal is that their proxies are getting routed by Russian airstrikes. There is no mileage in the US seeing Syria as a restored nation state; quite the opposite in fact.
    Thus, any ‘support’ of Assad will be the usual diplomatic mummery and double dealing.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 17, 2015 @ 1:51 pm

  13. Meanwhile the Kurds are the most progressive people in the Middle East and are continually being denied a state.

    The solution to the Syria-Iraq problem is so blindingly obvious that it is destroying any faith I have in the progressive blogosphere to inform me if any solutions to today’s problems.

    Syria-Iraq needs to be subdivided. West Asia needs to be integrated along an ASEAN model.

    Comment by Korakys — November 17, 2015 @ 1:52 pm

  14. We use words like “we” and “the West”. But if we’re commenting from New Zealand, we’re in a country that wasn’t a colonial power, can’t launch air strikes, and is generally irrelevant to the whole conflict.

    So why don’t we just stay irrelevant? That doesn’t sort out the Middle East, but since nobody else can do that either, why pretend we can?

    (“Because our politicians and military like pretending” is the answer, but indulging fantasists is hardly a noble cause).

    Comment by sammy 3.0 — November 17, 2015 @ 1:56 pm

  15. 9. What do you mean?

    I mean terrorism is like airstrikes – symbolic and ineffective as acts of war, but equally low risk and quite good politics. If some president sends airstrikes on far away places they can get big positive likes from their constituents, for “doing something”. If you are in some dictatorial ruling clique then you fund terrorism, you can do the same thing for the same result and with almost no chance of blowback. Launch an attack against and people die, but why should you care?

    Terrorism and airstrikes are the same shit on different channels.

    Have you not heard…

    Yes, I’ve heard variations on that theme forever, 20 plus years and counting. This is an internal debate, that I don’t think they listen to or care about.

    Comment by unaha-closp — November 17, 2015 @ 2:22 pm

  16. So why don’t we just stay irrelevant?

    We are irrelevant and it doesn’t matter.

    Last month Switzerland charged 4 ISIL men with plotting to carry out terrorist activity and this month marks the 200th anniversary of Swiss neutrality. Being more irrelevant is going to be difficult.

    Comment by unaha-closp — November 17, 2015 @ 2:47 pm

  17. But if we’re commenting from New Zealand, we’re in a country that wasn’t a colonial power, can’t launch air strikes, and is generally irrelevant to the whole conflict.

    We’re taking refugees though which is itself an involvement.

    I’d feel uncomfortable if we choose forms of involvement that minimised risk for us and left the risk for others.

    I’m not sure why Little doesn’t advocate providing military assistance to the Kurds. Would seem a sensible alternative if one disagrees with assisting the Iraqi army.

    Comment by NeilM — November 17, 2015 @ 3:04 pm

  18. I’m not sure why Little doesn’t advocate providing military assistance to the Kurds. Would seem a sensible alternative if one disagrees with assisting the Iraqi army.

    Probably because providing military assistance to the Kurds is legally dubious.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 17, 2015 @ 3:19 pm

  19. @NeilM: “We’re taking refugees though which is itself an involvement…I’d feel uncomfortable if we choose forms of involvement that minimised risk for us and left the risk for others.

    We are providing refuge to refugees because it is a humane response to people in need. In this case, people who are need to due to military conflict. It’s also a UN obligation.

    “Providing military assistance” to anyone is generally only exacerbating the very sequence of military conflicts that the refugees are running from. “Providing military assistance” outside a UN mandate is certain to only exacerbate the problem.

    Comment by RJL — November 17, 2015 @ 4:00 pm

  20. “Probably because providing military assistance to the Kurds is legally dubious.”

    It would also be really awkward if some of our helpers got killed by our coalition partners, the Turks.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — November 17, 2015 @ 4:29 pm

  21. NeilM: “I’m not sure why Little doesn’t advocate providing military assistance to the Kurds. Would seem a sensible alternative if one disagrees with assisting the Iraqi army.”

    If only because the underlying corruption, demoralisation and sectarianism remains largely unaddressed. Fix that first, and then training a standing Iraqi army won’t be money down the drain. IIRC the Kurdish forces are still legally classified as terrorists by the Pentagon and especially Ankara, possibly in the same vein that Nelson Mandela was once classified as a terrorist by the usual suspects.

    Comment by Kumara Republic (@kumararepublic) — November 17, 2015 @ 4:44 pm

  22. IIRC the Kurdish forces are still legally classified as terrorists by the Pentagon..

    Not the peshmerga. France has already been providing them with military assistance and the US has co-ordinated airstrikes agisnist ISIS with them resulting in recent major successes.

    There’s no legal problem that anyone has raised, it’s very popular with the Kurds and those recently freed from ISIS control.

    I’d have thought that approach would address all the concerns raised about assisting the Iraqi army.

    Comment by NeilM — November 17, 2015 @ 5:16 pm

  23. NeilM – while supporting the Peshmerga in maintaining Iraqi Kurdistan would be perfectly acceptable, assisting them as an actor in the Syrian conflict would not.

    The only foreign forces operating legally in Syria are those invited their by the Syrian government.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 17, 2015 @ 6:48 pm

  24. War is legal. That’s how absurd it is to quaver over legalities. We shouldn’t let laws get in the way of what is ethically right.

    Comment by Korakys — November 17, 2015 @ 7:33 pm

  25. while supporting the Peshmerga in maintaining Iraqi Kurdistan would be perfectly acceptable

    Which is why I wondered why Little hadn’t proposed this.

    Comment by NeilM — November 17, 2015 @ 7:40 pm

  26. NeilM – probably because Little sees no mileage in it.

    Korakys – actually, war is legal only under a fairly strict set of guidelines.
    Which is why it’s dreadfully important to quibble over legalities, particularly if NZ wishes to consider the UN as a meaningful mechanism.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 17, 2015 @ 11:18 pm

  27. Just a couple of comments:

    “It looks like the air-strikes/proxy force strategy is shaping up to be the solution to ISIS. The west will probably decide to support Assad and the Iraqi government in Baghdad in a campaign to recapture all of the territory claimed by ISIS.”

    Probably not. It’s not really thinkable that the West will agree to support the Baghdad-Tehran axis, because the Arab states and Turkey (and Israel) are all absolutely dead-set on clawing Damascus out of the Shi’a sphere. Though most Westerners haven’t noticed it,. Saudi Arabia has been fighting a war in Yemen to keep that country out of pro-Iranian hands. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel pretty openly prefer IS to Assad, and it’s hard to imagine that anyone would regard returning to the situation that started off this whole imbroglio as a workable solution. I also think it’s a fallacy to imagine that IS is all about territory – the Western powers have been doing some pretty cheeky manipulation with maps to make it look like IS has lost more ‘territory’ over recent months than it really has. A really mobile military force like IS doesn’t need territory, it needs lines of access between the centres where it is entrenched.
    This is why aerial bombardment effectively means Assad’s planes bombing Syrian cities in the morning and US planes bombing them in the afternoon. It’s a rather successful way of affirming the Islamic State’s claims to be the guardian and protector of Sunni civilians against two indiscriminately-murderous outside aggressors. I honestly don’t think that airstrikes can destroy Islamic State, and I don’t know if anything will in the medium term.

    “But ISIS is also a solution to a big problem, which is that there are millions of Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Syria that don’t want to be ruled by the Assad regime or the Shia government in Baghdad, both of which are just as cruel and murderous as ISIS.”

    Assad’s regime is brutal enough, but the situation in Iraq is a little different. The Iraqi government was not especially cruel and murderous towards Iraqi Sunnis, but is was negligent and dismissive towards them. In particular, it ended programmes set up during the American occupation that recognised the authority of local sheikhs and tried to buy their loyalty to the Baghdad regime. These local leaders were therefore relatively amenable to supporting IS when they turned up and offered an alternative. I do think that Iraq can be made to work, but clearly not on the political model that operates at present.

    Finally, on the question of the legality of the war (a subject I know very little about), see this rather judicious summary by Paul Farrell in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/isis-attack-on-paris-may-be-an-act-of-war-but-retaliation-might-not-be-lawful
    and this very pessimistic assessment from Glen Newey on the blog of the London Review of Books (Newey concludes that “we’re in a war whose very unwinnability prompts further self-defeating diktats”): http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/11/16/glen-newey/unwinnable-war/

    Comment by Higgs Boatswain — November 18, 2015 @ 12:07 am

  28. No domestic polical mileage helping the Kurds – yes that’s probably how Little looks at the issue.

    Although oddly enough when asked what he would do he said something vague about increasing state surveillance to contribute to the fight against ISIS.

    Which I suppose means our spies would be providing intelligence that other other countries would use to take the military fight to ISIS.

    Which is a military involvement but where we let others take the risk.

    So, yes there does look like a fair amount of looking at in terms of political milage.

    Comment by NeilM — November 18, 2015 @ 12:14 am

  29. The Iraqi government was not especially cruel and murderous towards Iraqi Sunnis, but is was negligent and dismissive towards them. In particular, it ended programmes set up during the American occupation that recognised the authority of local sheikhs and tried to buy their loyalty to the Baghdad regime.

    The US post-Saddam plan for elections, set up with approval of the UN, was to first have regional elections prior to a national one. The rational was to assuage fears that Sunni communities would become marginalised in the new Shi’ite dominate state by providing a degree of local autonomy and security. Also to reassure Shi’ites that there was minimal risk of resurgent Sunni Ba’athist brutality and score settling.

    However, the Shi’ite leader Sistani wanted, not without good reason, to make especially sure his community would never again be terrorised by Sunni Ba’athists and demanded a national election be held first. Since he was the major political force in Iraq he got his way.

    As a result the marginalisation of Sunnis commenced not helped by the eagerness of Saddam loyalists to seek sectarian revenge for their downfall.

    So was set in motion the Sunni revolt and tyranny of Shi’ite militia which only came to a brief end when a surge of US troops managed to win over the Sunni tribes to fight on behalf of the Iraqi state against Al Qaida.

    Once US troops were withdrawn things just reverted back to the previous sectarian conflict now exacerbated by Iran’s eagerness to play Iraqi Shi’ites off against there Sunni foe.

    Which is were we got the Malaki govt begging Obama to help save Baghdad from ISIS – the direct consequence of his brutal treatment of Sunnis. And Obana saying – not until Makaki goes and genuine efforts are made to bridge the ethnic divide.

    Makaki has gone but the promise of inclusiveness has yet to be convincingly implemented.

    It’s quite a tangle of cause and effect. Layer over that Assad (supported by Iran and Russia) and some mistakes from Obama – writing off the early opposition to Assad as mere farmers and teachers, then not following through on his red line re chemical weapons and determing who is to blame becomes rather problematic.

    Somewhere though I think there’s a position that is neither – It’s the Muslim Refugees’ Fault – nor – It’s the West’s Fault – which are the most common automatic fall back positions of the Right and Left

    Comment by NeilM — November 19, 2015 @ 12:53 am

  30. NeilM – a couple of points:

    The rationale for regional elections before national ones had very little to do with reassuring anyone. It was specifically designed to balkanize Iraq along sectarian lines to advance the interests of the occupier.
    Arab Iraqis – both Sunni and Shia – knew this and, with Iraqs long history of Arab nationalism, quite sensibly resisted it as an imposed solution.

    There is also the myth of “Saddam loyalists” as a source of sectarian conflict. The reality is that Proconsul Bremer’s decision to dismantle the Ba’athist apparatus and completely disband the Iraqi army basically tossed the Sunni power base out onto the street. Combined with Shia score settling, this created fertile ground for the logic of sectarian extremism, not the other way around.

    Secondly, the myth of “the surge” being an effective countermeasure against Sunni extremism. It wasn’t boots on the ground that effected a change in Iraq at the time. It was money. Basically Sunni political, military and tribal leaders were paid off to support the US effort against AQ. When that money stopped, so did the support; demonstrated by significant proportion of the core leadership or ISIS in Iraq – AQ in Iraq’s successor – being those very same political, military and tribal leaders previously fortifying the US effort.

    Lastly, re Obama’s reticence over the “red line” in Syria, given the recent allegations published in the Turkish daily Zaman, taking Russia’s ‘get out’ was probably a sensible option.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 19, 2015 @ 9:34 am

  31. Arab Iraqis – both Sunni and Shia – knew this and, with Iraqs long history of Arab nationalism, quite sensibly resisted it as an imposed solution.

    It was Sistani that scuppered regional elections by demanding the national election be held earlier. As a consequence Sunni political groups boycotted the election. Not surprisingly it appeared to the Sunni community Sistani wasn’t interested in power sharing. Which has been shown to be the case.

    There is also the myth of “Saddam loyalists” as a source of sectarian conflict.

    Saddam loyalists played a large part in the Sunni backlash. It’s not a myth. Currently ex Ba’athists play a major role in ISIS.

    As for the “myth” of the surge – well yes money was a part but my point was that US intervention through getting the Sunni tribes on side worked. And when the left ISIS moved in to take advantage of the Shi’ite dominated central govt’s continued disenfranchisement of the Sunni community.

    recent allegations published in the Turkish daily Zaman,

    There’s been plenty of conspiracy theories trying to deny Assad used of chemical weapons. They all come from those friendly to Assad. The overwhelming evidence via independent groups is that he was responsible.

    But my central point is there’s far more agency involved than We Caused All This.

    Disaffected Ba’athists were not forced to blow up civilians. The Shi’ite leadership was not forced to marginalise Sunnis. Iran was not forced to back Sunni repression. Putin was not forced to continue backing violence after having lost his ally Saddam. Turkey wasn’t forced to allow the transit of ISIS recruits across its border or to deny Kurdish fights in Syria assistance.

    Those were all free choices individuals made.

    Comment by NeilM — November 19, 2015 @ 10:43 am

  32. NeilM; the point is was making is that you are mixing up cause and effect.
    Which – interestingly – is central to your own hypothesis (the fact that it is complex, not that you have it muddled).

    Wrt – “We all caused this”, if by “We” you mean “the West” then unfortunately you are incorrect.
    A very direct line and unambiguous line can be drawn between recent (and not so) recent intervention in Middle Eastern affairs by “the West” and the current situation.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 19, 2015 @ 12:05 pm

  33. To me, Danyl’s comments around the West supporting Assad were all in the future…..and i agree. Who else is there, unless “we” are planning to invade the place and occupy it for a century or three to “stabilize” (slow motion genocide) it.

    Comment by Steve Withers — November 19, 2015 @ 1:51 pm

  34. Who else is there, unless “we” are planning to invade the place and occupy it for a century or three to “stabilize” (slow motion genocide) it.

    Leaving in place dictators because they provide “stability” hasn’t been a good policy for anyone and was a huge step foward when the US stop that around 30yrs ago.

    The alternative being put foward by Obama is to provide support to the moderate opposition over a period of time so that they take control and overthrow Assad rather than an occupying force. With the assistance of the US military.

    It’s a long game and I thought he should have done this earlier because I thought he will wind up doing it anyway. Which he has.

    There’s no guarantee of sucess because of Russsian and Iranian support for Assad but there’s not much alternative other than letting this just continue as it is. And if that was the decision – to do nothing – then that has its own moral and human cost which often gets ovetlooked.

    Obama might turn around tomorrow and say Assad should stay but that at moment is not the strategy and I think it unlikely given what we know of Obama,

    Comment by NeilM — November 19, 2015 @ 3:24 pm

  35. …when the US stop that around 30yrs ago.

    Jesus NeilM, what planet do you live on?
    Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia; client state dictatorships all. I could go on.

    Also, you might not be aware of the nuances of international law but it is fundamentally illegal for an external actor to promote and support the overthrow of a legitimate government of a sovereign state.
    All this mealy-mouthed bullshit around “moderate opposition” and “military assistance” is a smokescreen.

    You’ve been supping deep from the Kool-Aid, old son.
    There is no moderate opposition after 4 years of civil war.

    Comment by Gregor W — November 19, 2015 @ 3:56 pm

  36. The alternative being put foward by Obama is to provide support to the moderate opposition over a period of time so that they take control and overthrow Assad … It’s a long game … .”

    A very long game.

    A $500m effort to train Syrian forces against the Islamic State has resulted in only a handful of fighters actively battling the jihadi army, the top military commander overseeing the war has testified.

    “We’re talking four or five,” General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee on Wednesday.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/16/us-military-syrian-isis-fighters

    Comment by Flashing Light — November 19, 2015 @ 9:25 pm

  37. A very long game.

    Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day. And maybe it never was.

    There’s been a lot of justified criticism of anti-immigrant sentiment from the likes of some US Republicans.

    Where though is the support for Obama and Hollande?

    Will the Left just go all It’s Our Fault like Corbyn, Fisk, Glenn Greeneald, Ron Paul etc – which is all too easy to do in 140 characters.

    Comment by NeilM — November 20, 2015 @ 6:32 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: