HISTORY repeats itself as tragedy then farce. Syria is the seventh Western-led war in the Middle East and North Africa in just 14 years. Each blitz has inflamed greater destabilisation, terrorism and violence.
Acknowledgement of this failure was widespread following the Iraq war. Even the UK political, military and security services establishments conceded the errors of a gung-ho approach to war. We had, apparently, learnt the lessons that peace and security could not be found through occupation or Tomahawk missiles.
The lessons, I thought, were deep-seated. The civilian deaths were unconscionable. Military optimism met bloody realities. The cost and nature of violence inspired greater dangers, not fewer. But one act of terrorism, one day of carnage was enough to create mass amnesia.
The case for these wars – following seven failures – cannot be made on a basis of evidence. So all the political establishment has left is the exploitation of fear and grief. They claim this is for our security. In fact it is this strategy that is the most dangerous in inflaming further terrorism.
This is uncontroversial. It is the finding of numerous security reviews in both the UK and the US on the impact of foreign wars on threats to the West. The failure to recognise the risk that violence propagates further violence increases the danger to UK citizens from attack.
The former head of MI5 Baroness Manningham-Buller concluded that the invasion of Iraq “substantially” increased the threat of terrorism to the UK. Likewise the report ‘International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq’, drawn up following the 7/7 bombings in London, found that “the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism”.
This should not come as a surprise. The war in Iraq destroyed an entire social structure, providing a scene of chaos for jihadism to fester. The scale of death and destruction provided a point of grievance for those seeking to radicalise the young and justify further attacks as revenge.
On the verge of perhaps the most poorly justified military intervention so far, the only case made by Cameron for war is based on security and the claim that war reduces terrorism. How he can say that with a straight face – given the chaos of Libya, Yemen and Iraq – I don’t know.
His colleague David Davis MP was in a more honest mood. Yesterday he wrote: “Despite the government’s assertions, our involvement will increase the short-term risk of terrorist attacks in Britain. As the attack on the Russian airliner showed, military actions can crystallise immediate terrorist responses. That is not a reason for inaction, but we should be honest with the British people about the consequences of what we do.”
Of course such openness would fatally undermine the case for much of Britain’s foreign policy, which depends on a public entranced by claims based on fear rather than facts.
Daesh itself rose from the power vacuum and terror of post-war Iraq. According to a Baghdad analyst, Hisham al-Hashimi, 17 out of the 25 most prominent Daesh commanders spent time in US-run Iraqi prison camps. Torture and maltreatment were a radicalising influence.
Even Tony Blair has conceded that the war led to the rise of Daesh. Now we are told that the means which created this threat in the first place is the safety option for our protection.
No. It would be an even greater folly for our security to join an ongoing failed war based on thin evidence, contradictory objectives and false intelligence spin from Cameron.
Why add a handful of British bombers to a Western bombing campaign that is over 15 months, almost 30,000 bombs and up to 2,000 civilian deaths into its “progress”? This is precisely the reason that Canada withdrew.
Bombing a Daesh controlled city like Raqqa is the opposite of domestic security interests. This means thousands of civilians bear the brunt of bombings. Without an effective ground force alternative, this strengthens the position of local extremists as the sole defenders against external agents.
If any army can be financed and armed against Daesh it is the Kurds, but Britain condemns its PKK forces as “terrorists” due to their conflict with Turkey. The alternative is to change this stance, support a ceasefire in the wider civil war and cut off the oil finance that funds Daesh. In the name of bombing for peace, the West distracted from these more effective solutions.
A logical solution can be found. On October 2 the UK and US Governments, without irony, warned that bombing Syria would “only fuel more extremism” – if Russia did it. If only we could all see through the wars which threaten our security rather than protect it.
Jeremy Corbyn allows Labour MPs free vote on air strikes ... so RAF may be in Raqqa by Thursday
Right-wing voices add to chorus of opposition to UK bombing of Syria
Hundreds join 'emergency demos' to protest against plans for air strikes
Letters to The National, December 1: Corbyn's decision on free vote is a mistake
The National View: Corbyn’s refusal to lead will take Britain into war
Cat Boyd: Militarily and politically, this war will be a huge mess
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here