The drumbeats of war are getting louder. David Cameron wants to join the US and France in bombing Islamic State in Syria. The Paris attacks may seem to increase the case for doing so. But before agreeing to Cameron’s request, MPs need to ask the following questions.
1. What would UK bombing add any benefit to the bombing America and France are already doing?
The allies don’t seem to have many good targets to hit. Would the RAF’s involvement help the allies do something they can’t do now? Or is it rather going to be a case of us taking some of the load from others?
2. How would we avoid killing innocent civilians?
So far the US and French bombing has been fairly accurate. That’s not so with the Russian attacks. If we end up killing innocent civilians, we will give Islamic State a propaganda boost. That could be counterproductive.
3. Would our bombing enhance or reduce the chances of peace between the Syrian government and the non Islamic State rebels?
It is vital not to harm the peace prospects because that is the only sustainable way of crushing jihadism. Much depends on how we relate to Assad. If we do anything that seems like we are siding with him, we could drive more Sunni rebels into Islamic State’s arms. That would be counterproductive. On the other hand, if our intervention can harm Islamic State’s ability to attack other Sunni rebels, this could be helpful as they will see we are supporting them.
4. Do we have a strategy for rebuilding Syria after we’ve bombed it?
Or are we just going to wash our hands of what will inevitably be chaos, as Cameron did after his Libyan bombing escapade?
5. What’s the legal justification – if there is one?
If we have a good ethical and strategic case, we don’t need a legal justification. But it would certainly be desirable.
Without good answers to these questions, MPs shouldn’t back bombing.
Hugo Dixon 