Political Lying and Syria.

The only conclusion to be drawn from William Hague's consistent 'public diplomacy', on the British government being able to safely supply the 'right rebels' with weapons that won't fall into the 'wrong' hands, is that he is either divorced from reality or is willingly taking colossal risks.

"We are currently sending equipment that saves lives and who are we sending that to? Well, we are sending it to those more moderate, more sensible elements of the opposition. Obviously, we're not sending it to extremist groups, to groups that we're very concerned about, that could become a terrorist threat.

"The equipment we have supplied so far is not arms, but we have no evidence that that has fallen into the wrong hands in any sense and we have been supplying it for some time, so bear that in mind,"

Hague may well have 'no evidence' that so-called ''non lethal aid' has not fallen into the 'wrong hands' in Syria because , as with the allegations that rebel factions used sarin gas neither he nor the US administration is interested in looking for it.

This is what is so dangerous about the mindset that Hague seems to be trapped in. The rigid and abstract geopolitical thinking is clearly in continuity with the US neoconservatives and that was based on the faith based idea that with will power and 'resolve' the 'West' can win through.

In that sense, 'public diplomacy' is essentially the requisite propaganda based on a mendacious use of oil spin and words. In a brutal civil war, there is no guarantee that arms will not be traded to financially well backed 'extremists' by those receiving arms from Britain and the US.

The CIA, as numerous New York Times reports going back into 2012 prove, have been funnelling 'lethal aid' to insurgents in Syria-including second hand ex-Yugoslavian arms from Croatia. Satellite information has been used to guide the insurgents.

Given that arms from the ex-Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have been traded globally since the 1990s, it is utterly madness to assume that in the chaos in Syria both some of Assad's stock of weapons and any weapons from the West would not be sold by those wanting to make money.

Hague's stance is based clearly adhering to what he anticipates the Washington line was going to be and acting as an advocate in the UK for a full' shoulder to shoulder' stance with the US. There seems little independence in British foreign policy.

Yet there have been no real political warnings yet nor debate which mentions the facts about why arms have and will inevitably fall into the 'wrong' hands if they are supplied. No criticism from politicians looking at logical flaws in the case for intervention.

The useless Nick Clegg is not opposed to sending arms to Syria as it clear from what he actually states,

"At this point we're not providing arms. If we wanted to, we would do it. We clearly don't think it is the right thing to do now or else we would have decided to do it....We need to work in concert with our allies but we do not need to do the identical thing."

Nothing Clegg said rules out the fact that if the US decides it will arms the insurgents that Clegg would not 'work in concert' while pretending Britain was making independent decisions. Something ruled out when he says "the idea that we can provide a unilateral British solution to this is fanciful.

 Well, obviously it isn't a 'solution' and Clegg knows it's not an option anyway which is why he can say what he is saying because it amounts to nothing specific. He just wants to pretend that he supports an independent line on Syria while not criticising the action outright or really opposing it.

Political opponents ought to have had Cameron and Hague on the ropes, attacking their logic and questioning their use of language. Instead what we have is mere grandstanding, posturing and positioning of views simply to try and use the concern over intervention of Syria to promote themselves.

Hague, however, remains the most seasoned practitioner of political lying when he states,

"It's also not easy to take a decision to allow people to be killed who are faced by much superior arms and who may be driven to radicalism and extremism by being placed in the situation, so it's a classic dilemma."

The logic here is that if Britain does not supply arms to the unspecified 'good rebels' to use against the superior arms of Assad, then they will be driven to radicalisation and "extremism" This is an admission that the 'rebels' he would be prepared to arm will turn against us if we do not back them.

"There certainly are extremists. The complexity of this situation is there's more than two sides and there is an opposition.

There is no need for the word 'and' after admitting there is 'more than two sides' because many that are fighting as part of the opposition to Assad are 'extremists' if by that it is mean Sunni fundamentalist fanatics who want outright domination and victory and no peaceful solution.

Hague keeps arbitrarily using the word 'extremist' in a Humpty Dumpty way to mean what he wants them to mean. The word is used in the meaningless manner described by Orwell in Politics and the English Language.As is clear when he insinuates he has met leaders who are not 'extremists'

'I've had many meetings with opposition leaders who are not that type of opposition leader, who are sincere – in my view and the view of John Kerry and many other western foreign ministers – about their commitment to a future democracy in Syria, to dealing with the stockpiles of chemical weapons, to making sure that minorities are properly represented and not persecuted in Syria...Their commitment to that is sincere so we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking everybody on every side is an extremist. There are a lot of good Syrians, I can assure you."

The fact is that 'extremists' can be sincere to the point of being fanatical and can say what they want Hague to hear. Hague needs to reveal which opposition leaders he has met and which he thinks are the 'sincere' leaders. Otherwise, the public has to take his word for it. And they cannot.

Given that Hague has repeatedly acted in bad faith about negotiations at Geneva being dependent upon the ability of the 'good rebels' to win militarily, it is clear that the leaders he has in mind are those such as General Idriss who rejected talks and called for the US to provide weapons to his forces.

Idriss of the Supreme Military Commandhas admitted several times that he cannot create a unified force despite numerous attempts to do so as only a small part of the 'rebel forces' are trained soldiers. So Al Qaida and radical Sunni fundamentalist forces can easily take control on the ground.

The only solution is to start negotiations at a Geneva Conference with Russia and Iran included to avoid the war developing any further. The fighting is now a grudge match with sectarian overtones and only fanatical jihadists will exploit the chaos. This is the only realistic option.