Airstrikes in Syria? Please don’t.

On Wednesday 2 December MPs will vote on whether or not to extend airstrikes against ISIS into Syria. David Cameron supports Britain’s increased military involvement without reservation. Jeremy Corbyn stands proudly opposed but has declined to insist that all Labour MPs should vote in line with him or face the consequences, instead permitting a free vote on the bill. This essentially means that each MP can vote according to their conscience and, considering the fear and terror inspired by last month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, it is clear why some Labour MPs may be tempted to vote in support extending airstrikes to Syria.

Clearly the events of terror and attempted terror in Europe over the past few weeks display that the international community is starting to feel a more direct impact of the crisis in the Middle East. This summer we were eased into the concept of the international consequences of localised events when Europe was faced with migrants literally washing-up on its shores. Now with the planning and execution of terrorist attacks in Europe we are experiencing the more ‘terrifying’ and traumatic of these consequences as European life has come face-to-face with violence from, amongst others, those who posed as refugees fleeing the region.

That is not to say Europe should not step up to the plate to accept its fair share of migrants from the war in Syria. This is exactly the kind of social philanthropy that we, the ‘civilised’ West, need to display in the face of such barbarism and brutality. Such an approach is necessary to highlight the polarity of our perspective compared with that of the Islamic State. However, it is obviously just as important that this is met with a similar level of competency in our security services’ processing of the individuals that are welcomed into our society.

While I understand that many complex factors are at play; I do not believe that Britain should further its intervention through the extension of airstrikes in the region without an explicitly defined endgame. Such an intervention would only serve to add to the international complexity of the issue. We should of course do everything within our means to bring the devastating conflict in the region to a speedy end but this should not involve our inescapably indiscriminate bombing of a society that is already well beyond the brink of civilisation. There is enough destruction being inflicted upon the situation from within without the need for Western exacerbation. It is not our military power but our liberal thinking that we should seek to contribute to the solution of the crisis. We must do all we can to bring peace and diplomacy to the conflict; and bring shelter and rehabilitation to all those innocents who have been traumatised at its hands.

However, if we support the extension of airstrikes to Syria, all that we will be bringing to the table is more violence and aggression. I fear that we are only contributing to the problem if we offer no alternatives to such a way of life for those caught in the middle of the conflict. If our western bombs drop on Syrian soil, the message that we send the Syrian people is one of violence and aggression from the West. How are they to know that we disagree with those concepts in principle if that is their only experience of us? If we extend airstrikes to Syria we will, in the eyes of the average Syrian, become just one more contributor to the bomb-fest that already is the Syrian Civil War that is tearing the lives of its people apart.

Even if the extension of British airstrikes into Syria was assumed to bring about the successful conclusion of the conflict – and considering the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq, this assumption is taking a lot for granted – this would not be worth anything if it served to fuel the fire of contention that Islamic fundamentalists seek to stoke in their attempts to radicalise moderates. If those who are caught in the middle of the conflict come to hate Britain for its contribution to the devastation of their homeland and their kin, they become ripe for the radicals’ picking, to use an oversimplified analogy. We would essentially be preparing innocent refugees of war for their conversion to Islamic fundamentalism.

We should not underestimate the power of propaganda, nor the capacity of ISIS to proliferate it. The extension of British airstrikes to Syria will only serve to provide an easy opportunity for convincing anti-Western propaganda that ISIS can exploit to radicalise innocent civilians and rally them around their cause.

In the West we believe in the principles of liberty, peace and the basic homogeneity of the human race. Meanwhile ISIS, our enemy, abides and promotes an ideology that is oppressive, violent and divisive. Let us not bring the values of ISIS to our fight against them – that would be hypocrisy. We must consider the values of our society in our response to their barbarism and set an example that the innocent Syrian people can aspire to. It is imperative that we represent a clear alternative to the threat to humanity that is the Islamic State.

We must oppose the extension of airstrikes to Syria, not only in our long-term national interest but also in interest of human dignity and solidarity in the face of barbarism. Only the Syrian people, seeing the peace and stability in the West and recognising that it is the result of our values, will be able to set a peaceful and prosperous course for the Syrian state when the conflict does come to an end. We must ensure that the example we set is one of liberty, peace and unity. The state that results will be reflective of our input; let us not bring the same oppressive and regressive values that ISIS has brought, or that will be the nature of the Syrian state after the conflict. If we bring our free and progressive values to the situation we may just be lucky enough to see such a state emerge in that likeness if the Syrian people, led by our example, can be brought to demand it.

The important thing about a free vote is that it gives us, our MPs’ constituents, an unusually enhanced ability to exert influence over the way they vote as we are the only major pressure on their stance in the absence of a ‘whipped’ party line. Let’s exert some power. Let’s exercise democracy. Let’s prevent more bloodshed and radicalisation. Lobby your MP- email and/or tweet them. Let them know you care. Let them know that you don’t support the bombing of innocent Syrian civilians. Let them know that you want them to vote against British airstrikes in Syria.

Find your MP and their contact details here.