Naked Politics Blogger
On the bombing of Syria by the UK, David Cameron claimed that this would make the UK “safer”. This is fundamentally incorrect. Many have also said that Da’esh would be easy to eliminate. This is even more incorrect. Even more have said that we simply cannot let Da’esh go untouched. This, yet again, is incorrect.
The safety of the UK depends on one thing, whether Da’esh is able to infiltrate the UK’s borders and make attacks in public areas. So the matter comes simply down to a question of defence, and defence alone. By attacking Da’esh and bombing Syria, we give Da’esh the moral right to make attacks on the UK. I do not disagree that morality is not a great issue to members of this Islamist group, but we would have no right to call ourselves peacemakers or freedom fighters. We would lose the moral battle, and we would end up at war. We must ask ourselves, what can the UK do to most make use of its time and resources? That is defend, defend, defend. Make border checks tougher for everyone entering, even British nationals; lobby for the reintroduction of passport checks when moving through EU countries; and massively reallocate resources within the military, in order to focus on defending the home front. This is defence. Offence is the best defence on the field of battle, but when the field of battle is the world, we must make sure our island remains correctly defended.
Da’esh would be incredibly difficult to defeat, due to the nature of how it is organised. What is so difficult about its organisation? It has none. Da’esh leaders do not send you orders. If you are a militant, you take action in the name of Allah and the name of Da’esh. Da’esh claim responsibility for these actions because their supporters have committed them, not because they have set them up. Islamism is not any group of men and women, it is not a suicide vest in a train station, it is not a gun in the Bataclan bar. It is propaganda videos, Jihadi John, and black flags. It is an idea. That is why we keep seeing the rise of Islamism, because every time you destroy a group, another one forms with greater hatred for the west because their brothers had their legs blown off fighting for Allah.
The west created Islamic extremism, by invading Iraq and causing turmoil in the caliphates. We all know that these people are not fighting for Islam, they are fighting against the west and they use the name of Allah to justify it. Furthermore, if we send in ground forces, as much as we may be more advanced, we will lose. The western forces will be defeated. Time and time again, throughout history, we see that when nations send in organised, conventional troops, against unconventional, guerrilla warriors, the guerrillas win. Napoleon in Russia, Hitler in Russia, the Romans in Germany. The battle will go on forever and we will get nowhere. Bombing will create more hatred and more Islamists, and attacking on the ground is futile.
Then what do we do? What will destroy Da’esh most effectively if not military action? The answer is that they will destroy themselves. Al-Qaeda no longer exists because it attempted to grow too fast, it was unsustainable, and despite the inefficiency of the west’s attacks, they collapsed almost of their own accord. This happened with the IRA also. People get bored of ideas, they realise that no matter how hard they try to attack, the west is too well defended. If we simply defend ourselves, as the west, keep our fronts and our borders impenetrable, Da’esh will begin to crumble due to its lack of structure, and over-expansionary nature. If we do not act, there will be articles just like this being written about how Islamism collapsed, and it will be in the way I have just described.