A moral imperative – or vainglorious folly. UK bombing of Syria has split us all ... so how will YOU decide?
Resolve to defeat this Medievalist Islam perversion
THE emotional show of solidarity by the British people with our traditional ‘old enemy’ France after the horrific Paris attacks has been heartfelt. We put aside our normal rivalry, sang La Marseillaise at Wembley, and adorned our social media websites with the French flag. But words and pictures are not enough.
To stand truly shoulder-toshoulder with our wounded ally, we must respond to President Hollande’s direct request that the RAF joins the French air force missions against the Islamist extremists’ bases in Syria.
It is true that serious questions remain about the Government’s strategy to eliminate the Islamic State threat in Iraq and Syria and bring greater stability to the area once the military operation has been concluded. No campaign to retake territory can be successful from the air alone, and it remains uncertain who will make up the ground forces needed to conclude the assault.
The Prime Minister’s plan wisely ruled out deploying British or other Western ground troops – primarily because any conventional ground assault is likely to morph into a difficult counter-insurgency campaign on the streets of the Syrian city of Raqqa once Islamic State’s main forces have been defeated.
The lesson of Afghanistan, Iraq and many other conflicts through history is that a struggle against guerrilla fighters who can vanish like fish into the sea (to quote from Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book) is effective only if defending forces truly understand and are considered legitimate by the community they are protecting.
It also remains to be seen whether the 70,000 Sunni Muslim fighters within Syria can be supported into becoming a unified fighting force once the civil war being driven by Bashir al-Assad is halted. And that milestone is, of course, itself conditional on success in the Vienna peace talks that are seeking a diplomatic settlement to the internal conflict.
But the challenge to the nay- sayers must be to consider the effect of rejecting what is, in military terms, a very modest shift of focus in RAF operations.
OUR planes have long been undertaking missions on the other side of the practically nonexistent Syrian border with Iraq. With the Kurdish Peshmerga troops making progress in pinning the black-flag fighters back in the Iraqi zone being given air protection by the British, there is clear operational sense in giving our pilots more flexibility to refocus on what Mr Cameron described last week as the head of the snake – the extremists’ HQ in Syria.
The Government is clear that such an extension would be legal and would add value to the campaign. The greater precision of the RAF’s weaponry is no idle boast.
While no doubt we could always do with more of it, it gives us a better chance of minimising civilian casualties in the battle to free the Syrian people from this grotesque barbarism which is seeing women and children raped, enslaved and slaughtered.
There are many who have genuine and understandable doubts about further action. I hope they will ultimately be persuaded and set themselves apart from people who have secretly already made up their mind to vote No whatever happens.
Those who are using a number of unattainable pre-conditions to mask their fundamental opposition to UK military intervention in any circumstances ought to follow their own pledge to be straight-talking and honest with the public. Their position is a principled one, even though it is set against a long tradition on the Labour Left of being prepared to take up arms where doing so can make a difference against the kind of brutal totalitarianism which Islamic State embodies.
They should be prepared to defend what is effectively their pacifism rather than pretending their mind could be changed if only their conditions were met.
In contrast to these secret pacifists, genuine lack of certainty over whether the UK’s plan will succeed indicates to my mind a mature understanding of the deeply complex tensions that have run through the region for many, many centuries.
But while uncertainty of success is natural and right, we cannot use it as an excuse for paralysis and defeatism.
We must keep seeking an effective solution to these difficult questions while playing the role requested by the international community, including France.
We must not make any such participation by UK forces conditional on the problem being resolved before we get involved.
No one is about to produce a surefire ten-point plan to heal the 1,400-year-old schism within Islam and bring lasting peace to the Middle East.
But that in itself is not a sound reason to reject the Government’s more modest strategy.
Above all, we must be certain in our resolve to defeat the fascistic ideology of Jihadi Salafism, the medievalist perversion of Islam which lies behind Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other terror groups.
Showing resolve and solidarity in the wake of the Paris attacks means answering France’s call to join them in stepping up the fight.
To refuse President Hollande’s plea would not only be a blow to the French. It risks derailing the sense of momentum and unity to eliminate the IS threat which has been shown in the UN Security Council Resolution passed unanimously after the Paris atrocities.