Bombing IS in Syria will increase the
threat from IS to Britain
1.
David Cameron told the House of
Commons on 26 November 2015 that, according to the British intelligence
services, the UK is “already in the top tier of countries that ISIL is
targeting”. Though David Cameron didn’t
say so, this elevated status is due to the fact that the UK is already bombing
IS in Iraq. If his overriding concern
was to reduce the threat to Britain and British citizens abroad from IS, then
he would be proposing that the UK cease bombing IS in Iraq. Instead, he is proposing to extend the
bombing to Syria, which will inevitably increase the threat to Britain and
British citizens abroad from IS.
2.
France has been bombing IS in Iraq
since September 2014 and started bombing IS in Syria in September 2015. David Cameron is advocating that Britain
follows France’s example and bomb IS in Syria, as well as in Iraq, on the
grounds that it will make Britain safer from IS. It isn’t obvious that this extension of
bombing operations to Syria has made France safer from IS.
3.
David Cameron told the House of
Commons on 26 November 2015 that, according to the British intelligence
services, there are 70,000 Syrian “moderate” rebels that are ready, willing and
able to fight ISIS. This begs the
question: why did the Obama administration set aside half a billion dollars in
June 2014 to train thousands of “moderate” rebels to retake Syrian territory
from IS? The administration could have
avoided setting up this training programme, which ended up in spectacular
failure having trained 54 men in total, of whom only four or five ended up
fighting IS.
David Cameron is about
to put a motion before the House of Commons seeking authorisation for British
bombing of IS in Syria as well as Iraq.
In the wake of the IS atrocities in Paris on 13 November 2015, he now
believes that he can persuade a majority of MPs to vote for this step.
He asked for and got parliamentary approval for airstrikes against IS in
Iraq on 25 September 2014. At that time,
he wanted Britain to bomb IS in Syria as well, as the US and others had begun
to do, but he wasn’t confident of getting parliamentary approval for it. As he told the House of Commons then:
“We support the action that the
United States and five Arab states have taken in Syria, and I believe that
there is a strong case for us to do more in Syria, but I did not want to bring
a motion to the House today on which there was not consensus.”
After the IS inspired
killing 38 tourists (30 of them British) on a beach in Tunisia on 26 June 2015,
he contemplated seeking parliamentary approval for extending bombing to Syria,
but having tested the water thought better of it. But the IS outrage in Paris has given him an
opportunity to bounce the House of Commons into approving it.
To prevent IS atrocities in Britain
His central argument
for taking this step, which he set out in the House of Commons on 26
November 2015, is that it is essential to prevent IS carrying out atrocities in
Britain:
“Every day we fail to act is a day
when ISIL can grow stronger and more plots can be undertaken. That is why all
the advice I have received—the military advice, the diplomatic advice and the
security advice—all says, yes, that the risks of inaction are greater.”
It is as if he is
unaware of the recent experience of France, which has been bombing IS in Iraq
since September 2014 and started bombing IS in Syria in September 2015. It isn’t obvious that this extension of
bombing operations has made France safer from IS.
Defence Secretary
Michael Fallon told BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on 29
November 2015:
"There are always risks in war
but there is a greater risk from not doing something about Isil and leaving our
streets vulnerable to the kind of slaughter we saw in Paris."
So, in order to
prevent our streets being visited by the kind of slaughter we saw in Paris, the
Defence Secretary proposes that Britain follow in France’s footsteps on the
grounds that it will make Britain safer from IS. This would be laughable if people’s lives
weren’t at state.
Paris attacked by IS
There isn’t the
slightest doubt that IS carried out the atrocities in Paris because they were
under attack from French planes in Iraq and Syria. When the US-led coalition against IS was
formed in September 2014, IS issued threats against “the citizens of the
countries that joined the coalition against the Islamic state”, saying: “You will pay the price as you are
afraid of travelling to any land. You will
not feel safe even in your bedrooms.”
In claiming the atrocities in Paris, IS stated:
“Let France and those who walk in its
path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the
Islamic State, … as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign, …
and are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land
of the Caliphate with their planes.”
Without the action by
France against IS in Iraq and Syria, it is very unlikely that 130 people would
have been slaughtered by IS in Paris on 13 November. And without the Russian military intervention
in Syria in support of President Assad, the 224 passengers of the Russian
airliner brought down over the Sinai desert would have got home to Russia
safely.
IS has a proven
ability to carry out its threats with murderous effect.
British citizens attacked by IS
The IS threat to
Britain and to British citizens abroad will be increased by Britain extending
its bombing to Syria. The simple truth
is that IS will seek to respond by killing Britons, wherever they can find them. Of course, they may not be successful: in Britain
itself the police and security services may be able to thwart any attack –
David Cameron told the House of Commons that “security services have disrupted
no fewer than seven terrorist plots to attack the UK, every one of which was
either linked to ISIL or inspired by its propaganda”. But it is much more difficult to protect
British citizens abroad from attack by IS.
British citizens
abroad have already suffered at the hands of IS, when 38 tourists (30 of them
British) were killed on a beach at Sousse in Tunisia on 26 June 2015. Earlier, in March 2015, 22 people (20 of them
foreign tourists) were killed in an IS inspired attack on the Bardo National
Museum in Tunis.
(Seifeddine Rezgui,
the individual responsible for the Sousse attack, was trained in Libya. That
would not have occurred had President Gaddafi been in power in Libya. President Sarkozy was the prime mover in his
overthrow, which has brought chaos to Libya and helped to destabilise large
parts of North Africa. But the overthrow
would not have happened without the enthusiastic support of David Cameron.
The Tunisian Prime
Minister, Habib Essid, told The
Independent on 5 August 2015 that “the UK is partly to blame for creating
the violent chaos that allowed the extreme Islamist movement to flourish in
neighbouring Libya”. That cannot be
denied.
British military
action against President Gaddafi was endorsed by the House of Commons by 557 votes
to 13 on 21 March 2011, albeit after British military action had already
started. Jeremy Corbyn was one of the 13
who voted against. MPs should bear that
in mind when it comes to voting to extend British bombing of IS to Syria.)
Blowback
Almost without
exception, British politicians who were responsible for the military
interventions in the Muslim world in the 21st century (and those who
support more today) have refused to
acknowledge that there has been blowback, that past interventions have
increased the threat to Britons at home and abroad from al-Qaida related
organisations – and British civilians have died as a result. They ask us to believe that it was just bad
luck Britain became a target for al-Qaida linked terrorism and Sweden did
not. In some quarters, it is regarded as
close to treason to say that, as a result of British participation in the
invasion of Iraq, there was an upsurge in al-Qaida linked plots in Britain,
including one which led to the deaths of 52 people and
injuries to over 700 others in London on 7 July 2005.
Yet unimpeachable evidence to that effect was given to the
Chilcot inquiry by Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5 at the
time. Asked “to what extent
did the conflict in Iraq exacerbate the overall threat that your Service and
your fellow services were having to deal with from international terrorism?” in
the years after the conflict began in 2003.
She replied: “Substantially” and went on to say that there was hard
evidence for this, for instance “numerical evidence of the number of plots, the number of
leads, the number of people identified, and the correlation of that to Iraq and
statements of people as to why they were involved, the discussions between them
as to what they were doing”.
(See Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the wider fallout
from the Iraq invasion)
Sir John Sawers misleads
However, since both
political parties have been responsible for these interventions, neither wishes
to challenge the other on the issue and, as a result, it rarely crops up in
political discussion. An exception to this
occurred on the BBC Today programme on 26 November 2015, when the former head
of MI6, Sir John Sawers, was interviewed by Sarah Montague. She said to him:
“One of the lessons from Iraq is that
as a result of being involved there we became more of a target. Is there a
certain inevitability about this, but you think it is a price that has to be
paid?”
The honest answer is
YES: that’s the price that Britons have to pay for Britain continuing to have
aspirations to be a major power with an insatiable appetite for intervening in
the world. But he couldn’t say that, a
couple of hours before David Cameron was due to make a case for further
intervention. So he said:
“Well no, I don’t think, ahhhhh. You can argue what the link was between the
Iraq campaign and eh and eh the terrorist threat.”
There he deliberately
misled the Today audience – he is well aware that the link is well-established
between the invasion of Iraq and the terrorist threat to Britain, and has been
described in detail to the Chilcot inquiry by the head of MI5 at the time. But he couldn’t say that lest listeners infer
that what David Cameron was proposing might also increase the terrorist threat
to Britain.
He ended his answer by
saying that “the threat is high now and I don’t think it will be heightened
simply because we’re taking part in the international coalition”.
Will the threat not be
heightened? 130 people were slaughtered
by IS in Paris on 13 November after France extended its bombing against IS to
Syria, as Britain is proposing to do.
After Russia joined the international coalition against IS, 224
passengers in a Russian airliner were killed when IS brought it down.
Britain already in the top tier
In his House of
Commons presentation, David Cameron made a half-hearted attempt to address the
question Sarah Montague raised with Sawers earlier that day. He said:
“Some have asked specifically whether
taking action could make the UK more of a target for ISIL attacks, so let me
tell the House that the judgment of the director general of the Security Service
and the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee is that the UK is already
in the top tier of countries that ISIL is targeting, so I am clear that the
only way to deal with that reality is to address the threat we face, and to do
so now.”
So, the UK is “already
in the top tier of countries that ISIL is targeting”, according to the British
intelligence services. This elevated
status is due to the fact that the UK is already bombing IS in Iraq. Needless to say, David Cameron didn’t draw
attention to this, lest MPs come to the obvious conclusion that the way to
reduce the threat to Britain and British citizens abroad from IS is to cease
bombing IS in Iraq. Unfortunately, that
simple and cost effective alternative is ruled out by Britain’s aspirations to
be a major power in the world. Being
like Sweden is not an option for Britain.
Instead, David Cameron
says he is clear that “the only way to deal with that reality [of being in the
top tier] is to address the threat we face”, the action being to bomb IS in
Syria as well. This will inevitably make
IS even more determined to strike Britain or British citizens abroad – and the
proposed British contribution to bombing IS in Syria couldn’t possibly reduce
their capability to strike in Britain or elsewhere.
Matt Hancock echoes George Bush
On 26 November 2015,
Cabinet Office Minister Matt Hancock said on BBC Question Time:
“The real choice is not whether or
not to take on ISIL. It is whether we
take on ISIL now in their heartlands in Syria, where they are plotting these
attacks, or whether we wait and take them on later on the streets of Britain. I
think we must not wait.”
(This is a chilling
echo of President Bush’s message to the American people when he launched “shock
and awe” on Iraq in March 2003, on the false promise of eliminating al-Qaeda,
which didn’t exist in Iraq at the time but came into existence as a result of
the invasion, and in the fullness of time led to IS).
Hancock is not alone
in giving the impression that IS has a controlling “headquarters” in Syria –
Raqqa is often mentioned – where it does all its plotting and, if only this
“headquarters” were destroyed, the threat to Britain would diminish, if not
vanish altogether. Assuming for one
moment that there is an element of truth in this proposition, why does this
“headquarters” still exist after more than 12 months of bombing by the US and
others and how could a small British addition to the present array of airpower
succeed where the US and others with far greater airpower have failed?
In fact, the notion
that IS has a “headquarters” in Raqqa, without which its functioning, including
mounting terrorist attacks on Britain, would be seriously impaired, is
nonsense. On the contrary, it is
conceivable that IS would retain the ability to mount terrorist attacks in
Britain and elsewhere, even if it were driven out of all the territory it
currently controls in Syria and Iraq.
Making Britain safer
from IS attack requires the reduction of the resources – individuals, weapons
and bomb making material – available to IS in Britain for terrorist
purposes. Of course, those resources may
be reduced by police action internally and at the borders, but the idea that
extending bombing of IS from Iraq into Syria could have any impact at all on
those resources is a fantasy. Yet that
is what David Cameron seems to be saying.
British bombing in Syria, not significant
Indeed, it is
difficult to see how the proposed military action by Britain in Syria would
have any significant impact on IS in Syria, let alone on its resources in
Britain. To the best of my knowledge,
what is being proposed is that the aircraft and drones which are currently used
for surveillance and bombing missions in Iraq and surveillance missions in
Syria are going to be permitted to carry out bombing missions in Syria as well.
The current missions
are being carried out by a squadron of 8 Tornado fighter bombers based in Akrotiri in Cyprus (only 2 of which are in
the air at any time) and 10 Reaper drones based in Kuwait. The squadron had originally been due to be
disbanded in March 2015 but its life has been extended twice,
first to March 2016 and now to March 2017.
In December 2014, BBC Newsnight reported that “due to their age and long use” the
Tornados require “long hours of work by ground crews, particularly on the
engines” and that “on many days, just two or three of the Tornadoes are
available for missions over Iraq”. That
was a year ago.
In September 2014,
Britain joined the US and France in action against IS in Iraq (and they were
later joined by Belgium, the Netherlands, Australia and Canada). Britain’s contribution has been small:
measured in terms of airstrikes, out of a total of 5578 Britain was responsible
for 381 (7%) and the US for 4026 (71%), as of 26 November 2015, according to airwars.com.
In Syria, the US began
operations against IS in September 2014, initially aided by Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar. Canada followed in April 2015 and Australia
and France in September 2015, but the vast bulk of the airstrikes have been
carried out by the US. Since Paris was
attacked on 13 November, France has greatly increased its airstrikes against IS
in Syria and since early October, Russia has been giving air support to the
Syrian government, attacking a range of rebel groups including IS.
The plain fact is that
if Britain extends its bombing to Syria, without increasing the resources being
made available, its contribution will be small.
70,000 “moderate” rebels?
Even the most
enthusiastic advocate of Britain bombing in Syria recognise that IS cannot be
defeated militarily without effective ground forces. A vital question posed to David Cameron by
the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons was: “Which ground forces
will take, hold, and administer territories captured from ISIL in Syria?”
His surprising answer
in the House of Commons on 26 November 2015 was:
“… we believe that there are around
70,000 Syrian opposition fighters, principally of the Free Syrian Army, who do
not belong to extremist groups, and with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on
ISIL.”
He gave no further
detail about who these “moderate” rebels are and where they are located in Syria.
Julian Lewis, the
Conservative Chair of the Defence Select Committee, who should know about these
things, told the House of Commons
“… the suggestion that there are
70,000 non-Islamist, moderate, credible ground forces is a revelation to me
and, I suspect, to most other Members in this House.”
Patrick Cockburn,
whose knowledge of the situation in Iraq and Syria today is unparalleled, gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
on 8 September 2015. Asked about the
anti-Assad forces, he said:
“… the armed opposition in Syria is
dominated by Islamic State, which now holds more than half the country, and
al-Qaeda type movements such as the official representative of al-Qaeda, Jabhat
al-Nusra, or Ahrar al-Sham and the others are now dominant in the armed
opposition, and there are not too many others. The Free Syrian Army and others
that people used to talk about are very weak these days.”
If David Cameron’s
figure is to be believed, there are 70,000 Syrian “moderate” rebels that are
ready, willing and able to fight IS.
This begs the question: why did the Obama administration set aside half
a billion dollars in June 2014 to train thousands of “moderate” rebels to
retake Syrian territory from IS? The
administration could have avoided setting up this training programme, which
ended up in spectacular failure having trained 54 men in total, of whom only
four or five ended up fighting IS, according to the head of US Central Command
in evidence to the US Armed Services Committee.
David Morrison
30 November 2015