Yesterday MP’s in the House of Commons voted to extend
airstrikes from Iraq into Syria in an attempt to target and degrade the so-called
Islamic State (Daesh). Overall 397 MP’s
were in favour and 223 were against.
Last night it seemed as though every social media user had
assumed the role of foreign secretary.
Everybody has their own opinion as to the best way to deal with the
situation in Syria and Iraq (albeit some people are more informed than others).
Many people took to Twitter and Facebook to express their immediate emotional
response of how “fucking disgusted” and “ashamed” they were that the UK was going to extend airstrikes
from Iraq into Syria. Many people, with
their display pictures coloured in the French flag, expressed profound outrage
that seemingly “thousands of innocent people” were now going to be killed.
But unfortunately (perhaps controversially) I take a
different view.
I’m proud of my country.
I’m proud that the UK has decided,
by a democratic process – a debate lasting 10 hours in the House of Commons –
to stand up for what it believes to be right: freedom, human rights, democracy,
justice; the right to live and to love in peace and harmony without fear or
coercion; the right to individualism; the right to express one’s views whether
religious, secular, political, or even what you think of Brussels sprouts!
I don’t have the vocabulary to describe how atrocious the
so-called Islamic State is. They are the
antithesis to civilisation and human progress; truly, “medieval monsters” as the
PM said. You’ve seen the news stories of
the beheadings, of the Paris attacks - but that’s only the beginning. If you don’t follow the news particularly
closely you might have missed some grim details. I think it’s reasonable to say that you
should be in possession of the facts, and then acknowledge the complexity of
the situation, before you jump to the conclusion that UK airstrikes in Syria is
the wrong thing to do.
In 2014, Islamic State fighters stormed Northern Iraq, then
moved into Syria, and declared it a caliphate: “a state governed in accordance
with Islamic law, or Sharia, by God's deputy on Earth, or caliph” (BBC News). In March this year, the Red Cross estimated
that up to 10 million people were living within this area that Daesh claimed to
be a caliphate. If you don’t fall within
what IS deem to be their interpretation of Islamic law, then you’re either
taxed, forced to convert to Islam, or you’re killed.
This has resulted in massacres of the Iraqi and Syrian
people. For example, when one Iraqi town
was reclaimed from IS, mass
graves were found: graves containing the bodies of women who were deemed
too old to be sold as sex slaves and were therefore murdered. Gay
men have also been thrown to their deaths from tall buildings because,
under Islamic State law, homosexuality is a sin.
At this point you accuse me, and others who want to oppose
this evil, of scaremongering. But the
facts speak for themselves. No sensible person would deliberately
scaremonger to start a military campaign, but what the so called Islamic State
are doing in Iraq and Syria, what they did in Paris, what they could do in a UK
city, is terrifying to think about. It
is true, you cannot destroy an ideology; however you can destroy the terrorists
who use it to commit heinous crimes.
It is too simplistic an approach to say that you oppose
military intervention in Syria because innocent people might be killed. Innocent
people are dying right now in the so-called Islamic State. They’re being gunned down in sporadic
attacks, or being executed in a public display to disseminate fear - all
because of their religion, nationality, sexuality, or because Daesh soldiers just
don’t like the look of them. UK
airstrikes will not solve the problem – there is no quick-fix solution to this
– but it will degrade them to the point where they can be destroyed by ground forces. Many claim that airstrikes can’t discriminate
between terrorists and civilians and this is true. Airstrikes have to be used accurately and
with the right intelligence: Britain has demonstrated from the recent
airstrikes carried out in Iraq that it is capable of
this. The airstrikes are strategic;
planes are not dropping bombs on random parts of Syria. The airstrike carried out immediately after
the vote took place targeted Daesh’s oil supply – cut off their funding and
their power diminishes. Some experts
believe that 70% of IS troops are fighting for Daesh because they were forced
to do so or because they felt like they had no choice – this is not a
legitimate military force. With effective airstrikes supporting moderate opposition forces fighting on the ground, Daesh will eventually crumble.
It is not easy to accept that Western airstrikes will result
in civilian casualties in Syria – this is the reality of war. It seems to be an unpopular opinion, but the
long term goal of defeating Daesh has to be weighed up against the short term
potential civilian casualties - this was the struggle for MP’s in the House of
Commons yesterday. It’s important that
these extremists are stopped not just for our own safety, but to liberate the potentially
millions of people that suffer under the IS regime. If there is a better option than airstrikes
it wasn’t put forward by any opposition. I think we would be responsible for the deaths of more innocent Syrians if we sat and did nothing when we had the opportunity to act.
Seemingly the only other option that has been put forward by
those who oppose airstrikes (if they put forward any at all) was a “political process”. This is what Jeremy Corbyn said should be
used to stop IS when asked by Andrew Marr if he was
against bombing Syria under any circumstances.
What does a “political process” actually mean? It seems to imply that
Daesh are politicians, diplomats, negotiators: rational men who will come round
a table and reach a compromise with the West.
But they’re not reasonable, nor should we want to seek a political
settlement with them. They’re
barbarians. I assume a political
solution pertains to the Assad government and the moderate opposition, but this
civil war cannot be dealt with when Daesh have claimed much of Syria as an
Islamic State.
One argument has been suggested to oppose airstrikes that I
think is irrelevant. Many claim that
airstrikes are a waste of money when there is a lack of funding for public services
such as the NHS. How the government budgets
is an entirely different debate that is battled out time and time again in
parliament. If you don’t agree with
something the government is doing then of course you’ll think it’s a waste of
money. This economic argument only detracts
from the real problem of what to do about Daesh. If you don’t support airstrikes because you
think it’s a waste of money, then by that logic the country should have no armed
forces at all because defending ourselves and fighting for what’s right isn’t worth
spending any money on. Pacifist arguments are idealised: imagine all the people (Lennon)... Key word being imagine, it's sadly not the reality.
If you oppose military action in Syria because you think it could make
Britain a target for terrorists then Daesh have already won. It would be wrong not take action against the
terrorists out of fear of how they might retaliate. Britain, alongside the Western coalition, is
stronger than fear, evil, and terrorism.
The threat to Britain was already imminent before the parliament voted
to extend airstrikes into Syria. This is
where we now have to put our trust in the police and counter terrorism forces
that work to protect us.
One of the legitimate concerns for not backing airstrikes in
Syria is the absence of an exit strategy after the bombing stops. Almost everyone acknowledges that some sort
of ground force will be needed; but where will this come from? The government is saying that there is a
70,000 strong force to defeat Daesh on the ground after airstrikes have
disabled them. The number is accurate,
but this force does not exist as a cohesive unit. The government is assuming (possibly hoping)
that the 70,000 are moderate and will want to work together to defeat Daesh
once and for all in Iraq and Syria. The consequence if this assumption proves to be incorrect is that David Cameron might find he spoke too soon when he ruled out "boots on the ground". The international coalition conducting airstrikes might be able to cut the head of the snake, but their ground troops could be needed to kill the body. Then
once Daesh is defeated, there’s still the pre-existing problem of the civil war
in Syria.
The debate seemed to me to present a lose-lose situation: to
oppose is to be a “terrorist sympathiser” (in the words of the PM which were
met with justified criticism), but to support is to murder innocent people. Despite what claims both sides made about
public opinion being on their side, most reasonable, thoughtful people are
struck by this ambivalence. Evidently
some of the concerns about tackling Daesh and their ‘Islamic State’ with
airstrikes in Syria are very real. But I
don’t think this should make us idle; I don’t think it should make us a
bystander to flagrant atrocities that are being committed by these extremists. Complacency quickly becomes complicity. Our friends have called for help and it is
right that we are answering.
