#Syria the decision by the UK to extend air strikes against ISIS in Syria

I am writing this short blog as an exercise for myself as much as anything - to order my thoughts and to take a position.

The UK parliament has recently completed a 10 hour debate culminating in a substantial majority vote in favour of conditional air strikes against ISIS in Syria. This was a free vote and supported by many Labour MP's including Tom Watson (deputy leader) Hilary Benn (Shadow Foreign Sec.), Alan Johnson and Margaret Beckett.

I would like to start by saying those who claim the UK are warmongers, or have rushed to war, or have no idea what they are doing have not properly followed the process and arguments that led to this significant decision. It seemed to me that our MP's whether voting for or against did so with a great deal of thought and principled moral conviction - with good and proper intensions. It certainly was not a decision taken lightly or easily.

A SUMMARY POSITION

• ISIS is a jihadist fundamentalist cult intent on creating a worldwide "Muslim" caliphate. It recognises no international borders and are sworn enemies of the west and western values. Most would say their practices are medieval and certainly barbaric and cruel.
• ISIS have claimed responsibility for the recent terrorist atrocity in Paris when 132 were murdered. Authorities in the UK claim to have prevented 7 planned ISIS sponsored terror attacks in the last year. We must protect ourselves.
• Left without significant challenge the caliphate spread and was becoming ever more powerful. Less than a year ago it almost secured Iraq totally - including control of it's oil wealth. The democratically elected government of Iraq requested help from the West in countering the advance of ISIS. The UK parliament voted massively in favour of implementing a UN resolution to create a coalition to fight ISIS from the air over Iraq in order to give momentum to the Iraq Army fightback. This has been partially successful.The ISIS advance has been checked in Iraq and at least 30% or the territory lost has now been regained.
• The ISIS main base is in the adjacent Syria. They are fighting the ruling Assad regime and are seeking to take over Syria. It is from Syria that they plan and train for their reign of terror. There is indisputable evidence that they have sent people to attack us in the west from Syria.

REASONS FOR AIR STRIKES

• If we do not confront ISIS they will get bigger and stronger - and even more dangerous to us in the West. As Hilary Benn the Shadow Labour Foreign Secretary who voted in support of the recent House of Commons motion to extend bombing to Syria said "history shows we must fight fascism".
• The House of Commons voted 534 votes to 43 to support bombing of ISIS in Iraq. In the last 12 months a combination of air strikes and Iraqi fighters on the ground has been widely judged as being effective in turning back ISIS and civilian casualties have been reportedly avoided. ISIS does nor recognise borders. ISIS move between Iraq and Syria. It is illogical that our planes have to stop at the Syrian border.
• We have been asked to assist by our allies.
• There is no other practical option. A governments first priority is to protect its own citizens.

ARGUEMENTS/COUNTER ARGUEMENTS USED AGAINST AIR STRIKES

• Bombing on its own cannot defeat ISIS. Ground troops will be required to defeat ISIS and there are no obvious home grown troops in Syria that we can support. Therefore bombing is pointless. It is accepted ISIS cannot be defeated by air power alone. It is also true that unlike in Iraq there is no obvious allies on the ground that the West would naturally choose to support in a ground offensive against ISIS. (there is no proposal to put Western troops on the ground). There is further messy realities - the Russians are supporting the Assad regime for their own reasons. While the Russians are targeting ISIS it is also likely they are targeting other groups that see both ISIS and Assad as enemies. The West's priority is to defeat ISIS but they want the Assad regime gone too because of their human rights abuses including using gas on their own people and dropping barrel bombs on the same.) The West's intelligence gathering report there may be up to 70000 militia men admittedly disparate and not necessarily the allies we would choose, who are against ISIS and Assad. (it is true the Russians might be attacking these groups too). Despite Russian interference it is hoped these men could eventually form the ground force needed to take advantage of the opening created by attack by air strikes. So it is not necessarily true that a potential ground force does not exist that could in the end defeat ISIS. It is certain that these groups could not emerge if ISIS was not attacked from the air. ISIS is currently far too strong. It is accepted that this will be a long haul. and there are no certainties. ( please note David Cameron speaking in Parliament referred to the 70000 as a guesstimate and stated repeatedly that they could not be relied upon as a suitable or effective ally - but there was hope that they might become so in due course and the status quo was not a serious option in his opinion.) 
• Russia is already in there bombing and the crowded airspace could lead to an international incident. Russia and the West are there with the unanimous support of a UN resolution and both are targeting ISIS and to some extent working in cooperation. This extends to a common flight control over Syria.
• Bombing in Syria will cause further radicalisation of Muslims particularly in the West. It is understood that western ground troops however worthy their intensions often cause huge resentment (as occupiers) which might lead to further radicalisation. It is highly unlikely western troops will be used which is why a viable local opposition on the ground is such an important issue. Other Muslim countries are supporting the Western coalition in its attempts to counter ISIS. 
• Bombing in Syria will make our streets even more unsafe. Our streets are not safe now. See 7/7, Corporal Rigby, Charlie Hebdo, Paris. As I have said our intelligence service and police have recently foiled planned terrorist attacks in the UK. We are not safe.
• Bombing in Syria will kill innocent civilians. The lesson has been learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is clearly understood by Western Governments that while their publics might support bombing they will only do so on the basis that civilian casualties are avoided. While there can be no absolute guarantees we are assured that a combination of surgical bombing strikes and high quality intelligence and surveillance has demonstrated in Iraq over the last year that air strikes can hurt ISIS without hurting civilians. 
• Bombing in Syria is illegal. There is a unanimous UN resolution in place authorising air strikes and the removal of Assad (which is why the West do not need an invitation from Assad to fight ISIS in Syria.)
• There is no end plan - no plan for Syria if and when ISIS is defeated. This is a fair point  to raise given the mistakes made in Iraq and Libya particularly. The West might be resigned to keeping Assad (as the Russians seem to want) in place but only on a transitory basis. It is hoped the disparate groups will grow into a force for good (and refugees return) once they can see ISIS being pressurised by air strikes from the Western coalition. It is accepted that the future is not clear but that is not an argument against action now - it is just too dangerous to allow a status quo - and even more dangerous to leave ISIS to grow unchallenged.
• War is a mistake - we should be putting our efforts into seeking a political settlement. History shows us that it is naïve and wishful thinking only, that fascists can be stopped by negotiation - (or at least until they are on the brink of defeat.) Just consider Hitler.
• There are plenty of others dropping bombs on Syria - why do we need to get involved? It is practical for us to be involved (as we are one of the countries with the ability to make a difference with target bombing) but it is also hugely symbolic. We are part of G7 and G20 and of course NATO. Our allies like France have asked for assistance. We have an interest in these air strikes because we believe ISIS wants to destroy our way of life. We have a moral obligation to face up to our attackers and to support our colleagues in their time of need.

It seems obvious to me that ISIS are a world threat in their ambition and hatred. They are a threat to us on our streets. If we do not attempt to counter their activity they will expand and become ever more powerful and dangerous. Targeted and surgical air strikes are a practical way forward and I am satisfied the west will make every effort to avoid civilian casualties (while ISIS continue to butcher civilians). I do not believe air strikes will make us more unsafe. I believe we have a battle to win the hearts and minds of young impressionable Muslims who are being drawn to Syria and radicalised by ISIS propaganda. By weakening ISIS in Syria we can stem this flow. It might be a generational battle sadly.