A clear case for UK air strikes

World leaders gathered in New York this week had to face two serious challenges to the well-being of the people of this planet, especially its poorest and most disadvantaged members – climate change, and jihadist terrorism in the name of Islam. That the latter stole the headlines from the former reflects the extreme emergency that has arisen as hundreds of thousands of refugees flee from the advancing forces of IS (the so-called Islamic State) in Iraq and Syria. IS uses terrorism on a grand scale as its chosen tactic. Anyone not consenting to its extreme interpretation of the Islamic faith, which includes moderate Sunnis, Kurds, Shia, Christians and others, will be aware from the experience of other victims that they can expect no mercy if they fall under its power. They will be killed, in the most bloodthirsty fashion imaginable. So, terrified, they escape while they can.

The British Prime Minister returned from New York with his mind made up that the United Kingdom must add its own armed forces, at least to the extent of airstrikes by the RAF, to the international effort to halt and drive back the IS menace. The only question is: what took him so long? This week saw a remarkable coalition – assembled and led by the United States – engage in coordinated air attacks not just in Iraq but also in Syria. David Cameron, following the recently established constitutional convention that British forces do not undertake military operations abroad without prior parliamentary approval, had a very strong case to put to Parliament after a formal request for military help from the Government of Iraq. Labour, which withheld its consent to an air operation in Syria last year, this time seems satisfied as to the legalities, at least regarding Iraq itself.

The moral argument for the sort of intervention seen so far is transparent. Well-equipped IS forces have used their superiority in numbers and material to push their opponents into retreat, thereby exposing civilian populations to their merciless fanaticism. Air strikes can help tip the balance of force on the ground, thereby helping to protect the civilian populations. This moral logic applies whether the towns and villages under assault from IS are in Syria or Iraq. The difference is the legal one – that the Syrian authorities, such as they are, have not requested this help. The US takes the view that Syria, having failed to prevent its territory from being used by IS for attacks across the Iraqi border, cannot legally oppose others who intervene from outside. It is a slightly contentious case, as it was US policy to try to weaken the Assad regime in the first place. The United Nations Security Council needs to take a view on this, for it alone can resolve the legal point. It may find Syria is prepared at least to turn a blind eye to actions that weaken its own enemies, hence avoiding a veto by its Russian ally.

So far, IS has shown it has little capacity for an air war, but sooner or later one of the aircraft attacking it is likely to be shot down or to crash, and its pilot to fall into IS hands. Such a fate is terrible to imagine, and those pilots at risk of it should be in everyone’s prayers this weekend.