Why the rush to bomb?

When did the media become so bloodthirsty?

How quickly the narratives of the media changes. After the shambles that was the Iraq war and its occupation, the failed mission in Afghanistan and the so called liberation of Libya that has left a country split into chaotic civil war we were quick to criticise military adventures that had little gain and gave us more chaos than before we intervened.

Over the past decades we have witnessed time and time again how military might is rarely enough to defeat opposition, and to achieve sustainable peace diplomacy is always necessary. In Afghanistan after 14 years of occupation and air strikes it even became clear for the US that military might will not work, but diplomatic talks with the Taliban leadership is the only way to achieve a peace that can be kept.

ISIS/Daesh was able to grow in strength due to the instability in Iraq and also the civil war in Syria. They are funded by external parties and also get revenue from selling oil to several states in the region. For the time being the UK, US and France have been supporting the Iraqi government in fighting ISIS within Iraqi territory. However, since the attacks in Paris the has been a strong media led campaign to aggressively bomb ISIS in Syria as well. Anyone questioning such ideas is being branded a coward and unpatriotic, as if this is the simple answer to end all the problems in the region and to keep the West safe from terrorist attacks. This, however, is wrong and entirely irrational.

What is the end game?

Syria is currently embroiled in a civil war with multiple groups vying for power. It is not a simple Assad (government forces) versus ISIS. Assad’s support consists of over 10 separate militia forces, not entirely aligned. ISIS stands alone, while government opposition forces consist of 5 separate militias, also not allied to one another. The complexity increases due to the presence of Al-Qaeda and also Kurdish forces fighting in the region for their own goals.

So what is the plan and how do we win? Mass air strikes will not cut off funding to ISIS, nor can it defeat them. The more likely outcome is that the West will be further vilified by the local population and make converting disenfranchised individuals to their cause an easier task. Air strikes most often cause civilian casualties more so than military. This leads to individuals taking up arms against the West due to the killing of relatives and friends.

In the end territory needs to be controlled to impose a peace, but who will supply the troops? For now the UK and US have been insisting that there will not be any ‘boots on the ground’, with the assumption that a victory can be achieved as in Libya. This of course has not achieved any type of peace whatsoever. Iraqi forces are too busy trying to control their own territory to fight in Syria, nor may the be even willing. This leads to either supporting Assad’s forces, which would be an embarrassing U-turn after attempting to dispose of him, or further arming multiple rebel militias that have no form of organised coalition agains them that would then lead to even more weapons in the region. Even if ISIS were hypothetically defeated today, the civil war would continue with no clear outcome.

Lessons from the past

So what is the purpose of intervening? The current mantra repeated by the media and by David Cameron is to protect national security and to keep us safe from terrorism. After 14 years of being in a ‘war on terror’ and using drone strikes, air strikes, invasions and occupations, have we still not learnt that we cannot fight our way to peace? Continually fighting wars and killing people, especially those not connected to terrorism at all, will not stop terrorism in any way. If anything it will strengthen it and only serve to continually prove why the West should be fought and be used as propaganda for recruitment.

Some would argue that there is an obligation to intervene where we can on the basis of Responsibility to Protect. However, all intervention in the region has created is further instability and oppression. Intervention is also not limited to air strikes, but diplomatic and economic means as well.

The domestic situation has now become such that the opposition leader of the Labour Party is becoming mocked and considered unpatriotic for not supporting unquestioned air strikes against an opponent that cannot be defeated by such methods, preferring peaceful and diplomatic resolution instead.

What to do?

The history of the Middle-East is riddled by intervention and the propping up of leaderships considered beneficial to states outside the region. Ultimately it must be the states in the Middle-East that take responsibility for the peace and stability of their own region. Peace cannot be imposed by states with a culture and history entirely different from their own. States must be legitimised and supported by their own populations rather than external parties for them to be sustainable in the long-term. Otherwise the leadership will only be seen as a puppet of another state and will lead to oppressive measures to ensure that the local population do not rise up. This has been seen time and again. What the people want may not be what the West wants, but that is for them to decide, not the West.

Peace initiatives can and should of course be diplomatically facilitated and supported. Military intervention, however, has never been and cannot be the answer. Most importantly once a new order is created, it must not be toppled again by foreign intervention just because its values and leadership is not to the liking of other states. Of course human rights have to be protected and abuses must be dealt with, but if this was an excuse for military intervention the West would have to intervene in almost every state in the world, not to mention their own allies, or be continually faced by their own hypocrisy.