10 Reasons Why the

UK Bombing Syria Is a
Mistake
by Dilly Hussain

December 4, 2015 No Comments

The so-called war on terror has not safeguarded British citizens at home or
abroadin fact, its made the entire world a far more dangerous place.

A Western coalition airstrike on the town of Kobane, Syria (public domain)

After 397 members of parliament voted in support of airstrikes in Syria on

Wednesday, British Tornado jets launched their first wave of bombing raids on
ISIS targets hours after the motion was passed.
Commenting on the parliamentary vote itself, several observers have noted how
the terrorist attacks in Paris and the ensuing emotional reactions to the news
across Britain derailed what should have been a reasoned debate in the House of
Commons.

Here are 10 reasons why I think British airstrikes in Syria was the incorrect
strategy to embrace, and one which could have far reaching implications for
Britain domestically.
1. British airstrikes in Syria add nothing significant to the ongoing bombing
campaign by the US-led coalition and Russia. At the House of Commons, many
MPs emphasised the need to support our allies, namely France and the US.
However, Britain jumping on the anti-ISIS bandwagon to demonstrate that it is
still a global policeman, under the banner of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with
its allies, is rather disingenuous, and shows it is only taking part in airstrikes to
please its allies.
2. MPs who voted against the airstrikes questioned Prime Minister David
Camerons phantom army of 70,000 opposition fighters that will fight ISIS in
coordination with the airstrikes. It is important to highlight that currently
there are 81 rebel factions fighting the Assad regime, many who would be
regarded as Islamist extremists by the same MPs that voted for the
airstrikes. With this in mind, which rebel faction is Cameron referring to? The
Free Syrian Army (FSA) who are being bombed by Russia, whilst allying
themselves with Jabhat al-Nusrah in resisting ISIS? Or is he alluding to the
Kurdish Peshmerga and the YPG, who are fighting ISIS and Turkey, the latter
being an ally of the UK and a NATO member?
3. Another legitimate question that should be askedbased on empirical facts
does ISIS or the Assad regime have more blood on their hands? Without a
shadow of a doubt, it is the Assad regime who has slaughtered an overwhelming
majority of the 250,000 deceased Syrians. With this in mind, who will these
airstrikes really benefit on the ground if they are successful?
4. On 4 October, Cameron argued that Russias bombing campaign in Syria will
cause further radicalisation and increase terrorism. If that is the case, then
one must question whether British bombs are immune from radicalising
vulnerable individuals leading to terrorism. The same bombs that pounded Iraq in
2003 and created the vacuum that subsequently gave birth to ISIS can quite
plausibly do the same in Syria.
5. Britain and the US were invited to bomb ISIS in Iraq by the elected
government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. In contrast, who has invited
Britain to bomb Syria? Neither Assad nor the rebels have, and regional powers
that have fuelled the conflict can hardly be regarded as legitimate inviters.

6. Let us say for arguments sake, that ISIS are degraded and defeated, and
Camerons phantom army of 70,000 take Ar-Raqqa; would it be too farfetched to
assume that Assads forces could bomb the moderate rebels? If that were to
happen, is Britain prepared to defend the opposition forces against Assad and
the Russians?
7. Are Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Assad now unintended allies of Britain on the
basis of being the lesser of two evils compared with ISIS? If so, it should be
made clear that the years of aggressive rhetoric against the so-called Axis of
Evil by successive British governments was merely lip service.
8. According to Conservative MP David Davis, Camerons glorification of the
Brimstone missiles as a possible game changer is based on outdated
intelligence reports from the Libyan intervention of 2011. If this is true, then
its fair to say that it may not be as effective and accurate as many would like
to believe.
9. Will airstrikes in Syria improve Britains national security and make us safer
at home? Talking to the BBC, Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond said: Britain is
safer tonight after this decision. In reality, British airstrikes will only
strengthen ISISs recruitment drive, increasing the likelihood of British
Muslims joining them when they see videos and images of innocent Syrians being
killed by Tornado jets.
10. The Iraq war was explicitly mentioned by Mohammed Siddique before the
7/7 attacks and Michael Adebolajo after the murder of Lee Rigby, as were
the British airstrikes in Iraq stated by Jihadi John, and French intervention in
Syria by one of the Paris attackers. Will the UK Government have an answer
prepared if home-grown terrorists cite the Syrian airstrikes as a motive for
their crimes in the future?
Based on Britains track record in the Middle East, how successful has military
intervention been in bringing peace, stability and democracy to the region? If
fighting tyranny and oppression was a moral caveat to bombing ISIS, where
were these principles in opposing the despotism of Egypts Hosni Mubarak and
now President Sisi, the Gulf monarchies, Benjamin Netanyahu, Narendra Modi
and Xi Jinping? The selective application of chivalrous values in the form of
military intervention is hypocritical, and hypocrisy fuels grievances, and
grievances as we all know, have proven to lead to problems.

Ultimately, bombs do not end wars. The Germans tried this very tactic during
World War Two with the Blitz, and Britain responded in a similar fashion in
Dresdenyet the war raged on. The US-led coalition bombed Afghanistan and
Iraq for a decade; today, the Taliban maintains a firm presence,
and Iraq remains in turmoil. Similarly, Assad has been bombing his own people
for four years, and that has not ended the war. So on what rational premise
does the UK government believe that punitive airstrikes will degrade and
defeat ISIS? These are questions that have been continuously asked and
repeatedly ignored.
I can only hope that the parliamentarians who voted for airstrikes on
Wednesday will look back at their decision in the years to come with regret,
knowing that they have contributed to the death and destruction in Syria. The
so-called war on terror has not safeguarded British citizens at home or abroad
in fact, its made the entire world a far more dangerous place. If al-Qaeda and
ISIS-type militias are born out of these airstrikes, should anyone sympathise
with those who created that vacuum by supporting intervention in Syria? I
certainly will not.

A version of this article was first published in the Middle East Eye.
Islamic State, Syria, UK