As we are fully aware, Daesh (the abhorrent death cult of fundamentalist Islam) has been perpetrator of innumerable heinous crimes; including genocide, rape, pillage, execution, and so forth. As of approximately two weeks ago, the British House of Commons voted convincingly in favour of airstrikes in order to combat this foe. Almost immediately, and predictably, the emergence of the anti-war, anti-conflict protesters took the stage. Within this short essay of discussion, I will address their illegitimate arguments whilst conveying the overwhelmingly convincing argument of the polar opposite pro-war.
A most important point of concern raised by the anti-war protester is that of civilian death by airstrike. This is the claim that our airstrikes will cause civilian collateral damage, thus costing more lives. Obviously, this is a fallacy of logic; it dictates that we would be doing each of the following – Bombing randomly and frequently on heavily populated areas, bombing enough to kill more civilians than Daesh have already, and that our bombs are incapable of any amount of precision targeting. Of course, all of these points are utter and complete nonsense. Firstly, we are not subjecting the country to mass carpet bombing – this is not 1960, and thankfully, nor is it Vietnam. Apparently the PC left are deluded enough to completely ignore this point, along with the following: due to our military evolution, we are actually able to pin-point target strategic objectives which we can destroy without the risk of civilian life being compromised. Again, we aren’t dropping bombs from a WW2 aircraft, with the only targeting system being a pair of binoculars. Thus, there is little cause for concern about civilian life once more.
However, apparently irrelevant to PC leftists who oppose such action, is the concern that any reasonable human being would have for the people in Syria who would otherwise be subject to barbarism were it not for our action. One must understand that if we do not act, if we do not take the preliminary measures which will secure peace, we are surely worse than the enemy as we are the ones whom stood by as these civilians were smote in ruin. Must it take another 100,000 Yazidi women to perish because they did not comply with the rules of this 8th century fundamental Islam, that are nefariously enforced by Daesh for these opposers to act? Must it take thousands more to die because they are gay, or disabled, or apostates, or Christians, or moderate Muslims, for these opposers of war to act? Must it take more people to be thrown from buildings, or to be beheaded, or crucified, or raped in the name of fundamentalist Islam for the opposers to act once more? Must it take further indiscriminate attacks on Europeans who enjoy Liberty and freedom at the cost of those who fought and died for these values in 1938-45 for these opposers to act? Lest we forget that the only reason we stand able to debate this issue today, is because we have stood against such hatred and fascism apparent in barbaric enemies before. Would these opposers have acted in 1938 even with the gift of hindsight? If the answer is yes, then they must recognise their argument as the embodiment of dichotomy; for we all now face a much more dangerous threat, a threat which spares no life in its trail of destruction, a threat that if not addressed will not graciously thank us for not bombing Daesh in Syria, but will welcome our insouciant and passive attitude as they cull about them with no regard for whether we did or did not support this war. If the answer is no, then these opposers are not only opposing war, but opposing freedom and life. Quran 8:12 – ” I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, therefore strike off their heads and every fingertip from them” fundamentalism is inherently terrifying.
To state that airstrikes will be futile, is to refute all empirical evidence from ground based sources. The Kurds themselves have supported allied airstrikes, calling them “a great help to the capture of Sinjar” and that without them, the situation in Iraq would be unimaginably worse. The Kurdish also state that Isis were at the gates of Baghdad, prior to our intervention. To argue against this point is simply a paroxysm of idiocy. The targeting system we have established is used to primarily destroy assets of Daesh, we attack oilfields and exportation routes, stagnating their income and prohibiting them from purchasing weapons from unknown sources – we can certainly imagine who, though. Think of this action as a scorched earth policy, we starve them of what is required for an army to survive economically thus we wittle them down by attrition to a point at which the Kurds can capitalise and defeat them on the ground.
This action is necessary. It is a first preliminary step in the chain of events which are required to restore peace to a region which has known only war for millennia. To defeat Isis is to cut the head from the hydra, to then defeat Assad is much the same. What makes the difference is that we do not repeat the same mistakes which were made in Iraq – after destabilising the country, we remained pedantic about the threat of terror, but we became distant from the real problem; this real problem was the power vacuum left by Saddam, and the neglect of the Sunni people and their grievances, along with a carefree attitude for the democratic process. This ultimately resulted in today’s situation. We must instil democratic process into Syria after Assad, and take the steps to formulate change at a grass roots level, therefore straying away from fundamentalist Islam toward more moderate, tolerant beliefs. Surround this with a state in which liberty and freedom are paramount, and you have the workings to a country which can overcome adversity. Although very brief, I believe this to be the solution to the Syrian problem.