Carry On Up Tobruk

Watching the news footage of the chaos in Libya following our Glorious Leader's 'intervention' over the weekend, there was one question left unanswered - what was with the underpants? You know what I mean, you must have seen the same sequence that I did, with that Libyan rebel standing on the hull of a knocked-out T-72 tank, proudly brandishing a pair of boxer shorts. They must have had some significance for him, the way he was grinning as he waved them at the camera. Was he proudly announcing the fact that he is so wealthy that he owns two pairs of pants? That, consequently, he doesn't have to 'go commando' when the pair he's currently wearing are in the wash? Were they a trophy of war, stripped from the body of a dead Libyan soldier? Perhaps, as in Carry On Up The Khyber, the Libyan government had been trying to frighten the rebels by spreading propaganda that Gaddafi's troops were so tough that they didn't even wear underpants. Maybe the rebel had given the lie to this through his capture of the boxer shorts, and was issuing a rallying call to his comrades, along the lines of there being nothing to fear, now that they knew Gaddafi's soldiers wore underwear like any mortal men.

The other question this whole farrago raised in my mind was whether William Hague had got his mojo back, now that he'd fired some huge phallic missiles at Libya? He's certainly been indulging in some more macho posturing than we have seen from him of late. Most notably, he's been strutting around, chest puffed out, telling us how, under the terms of the UN fig leaf, sorry, resolution, Gaddafi himself could be a legitimate target. Gad, it's amazing how a bit of bombing can get the testosterone flowing for some people! Of course, both UK and US military chiefs disagree with him, but he couldn't care less - the thought of unleashing all that military power against a Third World country have helped him get it up again - who needs viagra? Apart from providing an aphrodisiac for our previously wilting Foreign Secretary, I can't help but feel that the main motivation behind this latest military adventure has less to do with Cameron's moral convictions, than his desperation to divert attention from the woeful economic situation at home. Certainly, the justification for this military intervention is fuzzy, at best - basically that Gaddafi is killing his own people and they should be protected from his armed forces. So, are we now going to intervene in Syria, as an unarmed protester has died there after being set upon by security forces? Or how about Bahrain, or Yemen, where similar things are happening? What if the Saudi authorities were to use military force to crack down on dissenters there? Answers on a post card to Dave, c/o 10 Downing Street.