Together we beat Saddam – now let’s defeat Isil

Britain should forge a coalition again with longstanding Arab allies to conquer a common enemy

It has taken nearly two years, but finally David Cameron and senior members of the Cabinet seem to have rediscovered their mojo when it comes to confronting the menace of Islamist-inspired extremism.

On the home front, Mr Cameron has set out a wide range of measures designed to protect vulnerable Muslim boys and girls from being radicalised by the insidious teachings of hate preachers.

But by far the more profound change, one that has taken place since the Conservatives won their stunning victory in May’s general election, is the growing determination among senior ministers to take the fight to the extremists in their Islamist heartlands, whether in Libya, Syria or Iraq.

The critical turning point came with the murder of 30 British tourists in Tunisia by a terrorist trained and equipped for his mission in Libya.

During the election campaign, the then Labour leader Ed Miliband provoked a furious reaction from the Tories when he accused Mr Cameron of turning Libya into a failed state through his leadership of the 2011 military campaign to overthrow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Miliband was roundly condemned for using the conflict to score political points, but now his argument does not seem that wide of the mark.

Mr Cameron, who likes to regard himself as a liberal interventionist, is said to feel keenly that he has an obligation to “fix” Libya, and this has helped him to rediscover his desire to employ the military to deal with Britain’s many enemies.

Indeed, George Osborne justified his surprise decision in his emergency Budget to fix defence spending at 2 per cent of GDP by telling allies that he had approved the uplift “because what’s the point of having a military if you don’t use it”.

Since then it has fallen to Michael Fallon, our combative Defence Secretary, to lead the charge on rallying support for an increased role for Britain’s Armed Forces, whether it is tackling the Libyan-based terror cells responsible for the Tunisia killings or the altogether more problematic challenge of tackling Islamic State (Isil) in Libya and Syria.

Last week’s row over the revelation that British pilots had already been flying combat missions against Isil in Syria demonstrates just how sensitive the issue has become. To judge by the quality of the debate, most of our politicians are still obsessed with the Commons vote on Syria two years ago, where the House voted against military action.

But what everybody seems to forget is that Mr Cameron called the vote in August 2013 because he wanted to bomb the Assad regime. Now the tables have turned, and the Government’s primary aim is to bomb Isil in Syria, not Bashar al-Assad.

This dramatic reversal in the Government’s position does not make for comfortable reading for the Tory front benches.

Yet my more serious criticism of its approach is that, while ministers are to be applauded for recovering their appetite for playing a more assertive role in the war against Isil, the Government is still struggling to come up with an effective strategy for tackling the threat. For example, Whitehall’s aversion to committing anything resembling ground forces means our options are extremely limited, while Mr Cameron’s preferred option for relying on drone strikes and special forces is unlikely to make much headway against a wellresourced outfit like Isil.

On the contrary, if the Government really is serious about defeating Isil, then it needs to develop a comprehensive strategy that contains all the military elements necessary for achieving victory – and that includes the use of some form of ground forces.

If Britain and its allies are reluctant to risk the lives of their own soldiers, then one obvious option would be to forge closer ties with our longstanding allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi military, which now has more British-made combat jets at its disposal than the RAF, has just achieved a significant victory by liberating the strategically important port of Aden from the control of Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. The Saudis, moreover, employed a wide range of military assets to achieve their objective – including ground troops.

Other moderate Sunni regimes, such as Jordan, Egypt and the other Gulf states, also have vital contributions to make in the battle to defeat Isil, not least because the Islamist extremists pose an existential threat to their own survival.

Let’s not forget an effective coalition between the West and pro-Western Arab states has worked once before to defeat a common enemy – during the First Gulf War to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s occupation.

To my mind, there is no reason to prevent a similar coalition being assembled to defeat and destroy Isil. If the West and the Arab states could inflict a crushing victory against a ruthless dictator like Saddam, then there is nothing to stop them taking on Isil’s violent extremists.