The Independent reports research by the Daily Mirror:
The survey conducted for the Daily Mirror by Survation showed 59 per cent of people believed sending warplanes to bomb key Isis targets in the war-torn country will increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the UK.
While 48 per cent of people said they backed air raids on the extremists, but 30 per cent want Britain to stay away and a further 21 per cent are undecided.
It is interesting to reflect why politicians are more ‘hawkish’ on this than the public in general. And it highlights that Jeremy Corbyn is right to ask why Labour MPs are not reflecting the views of the Labour Party membership. Is it because, like the Conservatives, they have become a political class increasingly out of touch with the electorate?
2. The Prime Minister’s reasons are unconvincing
You can read the PM’s briefing to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for yourself. It does not look very convincing. My good friend Peter Head comments:
Well I’ve read the Prime Minister’s Memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee setting out the grounds for air-strikes against ISIL in Syria and I was not persuaded. The naive faith in “precision bombing”, the myth that 70,000 Syrian moderates will step up and take control, the appeal to Iraq as an exemplar of good practice, are bad enough; but the belief that air strikes can be regarded as legitimate acts of national self-defence and that they can defeat ISIL are not supported by evidence or argument. And at several points the main argument is “we don’t want to be left out of the gang” because that would damage our international esteem. Not good enough. I’m not voting for this.
3. Jeremy Corbyn asks some important questions
Corbyn’s letter to his MPs is fairly short and to the point. The core of it is that Cameron has not really answered the questions asked of him:
Our first priority must be the security of Britain and the safety of the British people. The issue now is whether what the Prime Minister is proposing strengthens, or undermines, our national security.
I do not believe that the Prime Minister today made a convincing case that extending UK bombing to Syria would meet that crucial test. Nor did it satisfactorily answer the questions raised by us and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
In particular, the Prime Minister did not set out a coherent strategy, coordinated through the United Nations, for the defeat of ISIS. Nor has he been able to explain what credible and acceptable ground forces could retake and hold territory freed from ISIS control by an intensified air campaign.
I think it is a great shame that BBC coverage has mostly focussed on what is happening in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Corbyns’s leadership—rather than the questions of substance which need to be addressed.
Matthew Parris, writing in The Times (sadly behind the paywall) appears to agree.
Amazingly, Corbyn is right. The hawks just want to join a scrap with their mates and haven’t a clue what happens afterwards.
‘If not now, when?” asked the prime minister this week: a question that has surely preceded some of the silliest decisions in history. It could have been asked before Iraq. It could have been asked before Afghanistan or Libya, or Suez. It was probably asked before the Charge of the Light Brigade. There is no right time for an unwise decision.
4. Many Syrians do not want it
I recently read a letter from Syrian community leaders in the UK urging that bombing should not be stepped up. (If you can locate it, please let me know.) It is not difficult to see why. Bombing destroys infrastructure, so that poverty and frustration increase, which in turn only functions as a breeding ground for further resentment and extremism. Civilian casualties are bound to result. And for many in Syria, ISIS has been welcomed because they received worse treatment at the hands of Assad.
The letter from the Stop the War coalition sets out the lessons from previous conflicts.
The current rush to bomb Syria following the terrible events in Paris risks a dangerous escalation which will inflame the war there and increase bitterness against the west. The US has been bombing Isis for a year and admits that Isis is as strong as ever and has continued recruiting.
The experience of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya shows that western military interventions lead to large-scale casualties, devastating destruction and huge flows of refugees. Far from tackling terrorism, the last 14 years of war have seen massively increased jihadi terrorist organisations around the world.
Andrew Bacevich, a former US Colonel, highlights why bombing would be so counter-productive in the longer term.
The threat posed by terrorism is merely symptomatic of larger underlying problems. Crush Isis, whether by bombing or employing boots on the ground, and those problems will still persist. A new Isis, under a different name but probably flying the same banner, will appear in its place, Much as Isis itself emerged from the ashes of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
5. Western money is funding ISIS
NATO member Turkey has been a long-term funder of both Al Qaeda and ISIS.
It might seem outrageous to suggest that a Nato member like Turkey would in any way support an organisation that murders western civilians in cold blood. That would be like a Nato member supporting al-Qaida. But in fact there is reason to believe that Erdo?an’s government does support the Syrian branch of al-Qaida (Jabhat al-Nusra) too, along with any number of other rebel groups that share its conservative Islamist ideology. The Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia University has compiled a long list of evidence of Turkish support for Isis in Syria.
The son of Turkey’s President appears to be directly involved in this funding.
A much more effective way of defeating ISIS would be to persuade Turkey to allow Kurdish forces freedom to act.
How could Isis be eliminated? In the region, everyone knows. All it would really take would be to unleash the largely Kurdish forces of the YPG (Democratic Union party) in Syria, and PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ party) guerillas in Iraq and Turkey. These are, currently, the main forces actually fighting Isis on the ground. They have proved extraordinarily militarily effective and oppose every aspect of Isis’s reactionary ideology.
But of course support for ISIS also substantially comes from Saudi Arabia—whose money in turn comes from Western countries buying its oil—along with Kuwait and Qatar, all of whom have received significant support from the UK Government. In fact, the growth of ISIS might well have been a long-term strategic goal of the Saudis.
6. Western arms manufacturers are fuelling a new arms race in the region.
There has been a massive escalation of arms sales to the region, with Britain leading the way, along with the US, Canada and France. In response, Russia has also stepped up its sales.
Given the unprecedented levels of weapon sales by the west (including the US, Canada and the UK) to the mainly Sunni Gulf states, Vladimir Putin’s decision last week to allow the controversial delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran – voluntarily blocked by Russia since 2010 – seems likely to accelerate the proliferation.
That will see agreed arms sales to the top five purchasers in the region – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt and Iraq – surge this year to more than $18bn, up from $12bn last year.
This adds to the trade in illicit arms left over from conflict in the Balkans—and the US weapons supplied to the Iraqi army that have been captured by ISIS.
7. The Christian tradition of pacifism
There are many important theological issues raised by all this. What are the ethics of supporting a war which benefits one’s own economy by selling arms? Where is the integrity in supporting regimes who are in flagrant breach of human rights? Where is the integrity in working with countries which are clearly supporting terrorist organisations which are threatening our national security? How can politicians make responsible decisions when looking hawkish consistently boosts one’s poll ratings?
Underneath it all is the strong Christian tradition of rejection of war as a way of resolving conflict. I found it challenging to be preaching on Daniel 7 this morning. Most scholars believe that though Daniel is written about events in the sixth century BCE, it was written for a crisis in the second century—the desecration of the Jewish Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 BCE. An alternative account can be found in the account of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers. They opposed Antiochus by force—but their books did not find their way into the canon of scripture. Instead, we have Daniel, whose message is to wait for God’s deliverance rather than resist by force.
This doesn’t offer an easy solution—but there seem to me to be enough important questions that need a good answer before we go to war again.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, would you consider donating £1.20 a month to support the production of this blog?