Thoughts on the Air Strikes

In wake of the recent UK Parliamentary decision to extend the airstrikes against Daesh/IS to the region of Syria; I think it is important to share some thoughts regarding the situation. Firstly, I’d like to state that I do not have the time nor the effort to deal with the level of unnecessary abuse towards David Cameroon. Speaking from a fundamentally left position on both economics and social issues; I find it extremely disturbing and ultimately believe it to be detrimental to blame Cameroon. People who want to discuss the issue, on a serious level, should not be shoving their political preferences down the throat of the masses, this is not what the debate is about. I do not care who you vote for; this is a question of morals and pragmatism. Further, its borderline ironic that Corbynites are engaging in hate speech, when during the newly appointed Labour leader’s first Conference speech; he preached honest politics, with particular emphasis on an anti personal attack approach.

The House of Commons voted to extend airstrikes to Syria

On the issue, more fundamentally, there are several key facts that need to be appreciated. For example, the nature of the debate is, objectively, both entirely complex and yet fundamentally simple. Wherever one lies on the political spectrum in the UK; whether it be left, centre or right, we all wish the same end; the defeat of Daesh. Now, the complexity lies in the fact that there are multiple different means in which this can occur; each with varying degrees of effectiveness. When debating this issue recently, I found myself to be on the ‘anti airstrike’ team. However, the multi dimensional nature of the ‘means’ debate, coupled with its deeply emotional roots, results in myself, and I'm sure plenty of others, remaining undecided.

The recent attacks in Paris are the latest in a long list of deadly IS operations

I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to several criticisms of the airstrike operation which I deem to be both unfair and borderline absurd. Make no mistake, Daesh/IS, are a cult of death. Every single member and soldier wishes nothing less than to murder, in enormous numbers, as many western civilians as possible. Further, this organisation, terrorist network, is entirely unpredictable. We can not second guess where the next target, attack or massacre will take place; as we learnt so devastatingly through the brutality of the attacks in Paris only several weeks ago. The very nature of the operation itself; a central concentration of power dispersed around the region of Iraq/Syria, and most probably other states, communicating with individuals and groups of empathisers across the entire world is extremely complex to handle. However, for this very reason, action must be taken to contain the situation. You cannot bomb an ideology to death; but you can weaken its means of inspiring. ISIS are a threat to the way in which we live, the ideals we aspire to and the people we love and care for. This is a monster which will not show mercy. Military technological advancements mean that precise and target based operations can function in such a way that as little collateral damage as possible is caused. Although it is foolish to believe that innocent lives are not at risk; certainly, when bombs are dropped from 10s of thousands of feet. Further, it is worth pointing out that the largest thereat ISIS posses to any particular groups of people is the religion it claims to represent; Islam. 

Jihadi John epitomises the 'Cult of Death' which is Daesh

The functioning of ISIS is built around, in my opinion, two fundamental goals; to polarise and mobilise. Both of these objectives are, of course, inherently linked. The extent to which ISIS can polarise members of the Islamic community, so that they result to following extremism, will of course affect the ability of the organisation to mobilise potential followers. The Charlie Hebdo killings failed on both these grounds; the attacks caused the western world to unite, and the Paris assaults furthered this, as shown by the fact that there is unanimous agreement on the United Nations Security council, that action must be taken against ISIS. The risk, however, lies in whether or not the Islamic world, who are against ISIS, will support the airstrike policy of the West. Even if the airstrikes are a success; and we defeat Daesh, we risk antagonising and creating a vacuum whereby another organisation, perhaps an even more brutal equivalent, can rise and seize power. 

My biggest fear, about the entire situation, is the potential alienating of large groups of innocent peoples; i.e. followers of Islam across the world. ISIS is an extremist group, proclaiming to operate under the guidance of Islam. But, they couldn't be less similar. In the same way that the Klu Klux Klan ought not be associated with any values held by regular followers of Christianity; we must understand the enormous disparity between the values that IS hold and general practicers of the Islamic faith. Fear politics is in danger of corrupting the minds and conscience of all in the West. The people fleeing from Syria, including many children, are innocent; they do not need to be made victims in this situation, it’s bad enough that they have had to flee the comfort of their own home. Aside from there being powerful economic arguments for encouraging refugees to live in Britain, we are obliged, morally, to welcome as many of these peoples as we can possibly handle.. Myself, and the majority of others, are fortunate enough to live our daily lives with little or no concern about our security and well being. The average ‘man’ on the street is not hostile; we appear to live in a largely hospitable country. The values we proclaim to live by; liberte, egalite, fraternite, ought to guide us into welcoming our arms. Further, by embracing many of these refugees we are, perhaps, instilling a policy which is likely to be more effective in countering IS. We need not polarise and alienate these people so that they turn to desperate extremes; we must offer a helping hand. 

The attacks in Paris have united the Western front

Ultimately, as demonstrated by the above rhetoric, I am entirely undecided. On the one hand, I want the complete destruction of ISIS, but the risks of potentially doing ISIS’ job for them, alienating large sectors of the Islamic community terrifies me. This debate appears to split people, in many ways. But one noticeable cleavage it creates is the so called Idealists v. practitioners of pragmatic politics. On the one side, the idealist believes that we can handle the situation created by IS through entirely peaceful means; working with the people on the ground, understanding the demands of the innocent, who are most at risk, in all Syria, Iraq and the entire region. The practical political points towards several different facts however. The West, including Britain, prior to the Commons vote on Wednesday, were already bombing IS strongholds in Iraq. In this sense, the real politic perspective might ask; why not increase the bombing? Further, the fact that we are dealing with an inherently facist group, which wishes to disposes us of everything we cherish so dearly, forces us to be aggressive. Over all, this is a debate which will not go away, and will continue to be at the forefront of not just British politics, but the international political arena, for many a time to come.