It is a case not of whether but when we intervene
Just over a year on from parliament choosing inactivity as a response to a horrific war crime in Syria, we find ourselves as a country and a parliament once again wracked with uncertainty. Faced with an unprecedented threat from the wave of Islamic State-led extremism sweeping the Middle East, we are torn between warning ourselves of dire consequences if we intervene, or of dire consequences if we sit back.
None of this is helped by the fact that we are led by a prime minister who has seemed trapped by the fiasco of the chaotic lost vote and his hasty decision to rule out all military action in its aftermath.
There is a movement afoot in some quarters to rewrite history on that vote, suggesting we were being asked to intervene on the side of the murderous butchers who have now gained a foothold in Iraq. Tied to this is the argument that every time we go in we inevitably make it worse, so better just to leave well alone. Truly, this is a counsel of despair and not one that Labour should spend any time accommodating.
There is, of course, a legitimate debate about the legacy of the last Iraq war. Even those who do not accept it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein must admit we bear a terrible responsibility for the botched reconstruction. But by failing to intervene in Syria when Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people we abandoned the moderate, democratic Syrian opposition who were bravely fighting both the brutal regime and the Islamic State insurgency that was, at that time, being covertly bolstered by Assad himself to cloud the thinking of the west and distract his main enemy.
Leaving the moderates to their fate allowed Islamic State to pour into rebel-held areas in north-east Syria and establish a stronger base from which they have been able to spread and grow into the monster the group has become today. And – perhaps most importantly of all – it sent a message to the extremists that we just no longer have the will to stake a stand. Barack Obama drew a red line over chemical weapon use, it was crossed, and what happened? Not a lot.
Let’s just remind ourselves what has happened in Syria over the last year since we chose inaction: there are now 10.8 million people requiring humanitarian aid; nine million have been displaced and three million have become refugees, spilling over to the country’s neighbours, overwhelming Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. And winter is once again coming, making conditions in the overcrowded camps still more horrific.
The British public are understandably weary of perpetual conflict, but they also rightly demand that we do what is necessary to keep Britain safe. That is the absolute minimum Labour should be demanding from the government now and is what the British people will demand of a Labour government. If we value our way of life, our personal security, our living standards sustained through trade with other nations, we have no choice but to confront this new evolution of evil, this perversion of the true faith of Islam.
It is an uncomfortable truth that the only choice will not be whether we intervene, but when and how. But the longer we delay, the greater the threat will become, and the more we will ultimately have to sacrifice to defeat it. Islamic State represents a nihilistic form of evil, which glories in death, horror and destruction. Whether from Islamic State or a similar group, in some form or another, the next 9/11, or worse, will come if we remain blasé. And it will happen with us knowing that had we acted sooner we could in all likelihood have prevented it. That would be the real betrayal of those who have lost their lives fighting for their country, as well as an abdication of our responsibility to lead – and of the responsibility every government has to protect its citizens.
So Britain should be at the very forefront of efforts to engage an international coalition to prevent Islamic State from realising its dream of a permanent state intent on jihad against the west. The government is groping its way, slowly, incoherently, chaotically, towards some sort of response. What little has been done – assistance to the Yazadis trapped by Islamic State on Mount Sinjar, the recent decision to increase the supply of arms to the Iraqi army which is engaged in beating back the Islamic State foothold – is welcome, but it remains too little in the face of the scale of the threat. Labour needs to make the case strongly for a more coherent strategy and for Britain to take a role of leadership – alongside the United States but also Middle Eastern states – to face the threat head-on.
We should be planning not only for the military action that is needed to beat back the immediate threat, but for a concerted international effort to create the environment that moderate forces in the region need to bring greater stability to the Middle East. Helping them remove the social, economic and political conditions that allow the extremists to thrive. This twisted ideology is the greatest threat to global security and our values since Nazi Germany, and, just like the rise of the Nazis, we will all ultimately be held to account for what we did to defeat it while we had the chance.
———————————-
John Woodcock MP is chair of Progress
———————————-
Last year, the British Parliament voted, in my opinion correctly, not to intervene in Syria. I don’t think the British people would want to change that decision, because, in particular, the chances of success going down that route are so slim.
With regard to twisted ideologies, it seems that there are a lot of pots calling kettles black. For peace in the Middle East, would it not be a good idea to let the Palestinians have their land back? That might create a foundation for discussions as to what the main religions have in common and how they can work together to achieve peace.