This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/23/guardian-view-air-strikes-syria

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on air strikes in Syria The Guardian view on air strikes against Isis
(6 days later)
Air strikes against Islamic State positions in Syria represent another worrying step into the unknown in the Middle East. How can there not be unease about civilian casualties, the fate of hostages, the possibility of deadly retaliatory operations on US and European soil, the setting aside of international law, and the uncertain impact on the Syrian conflict of this expansion of the campaign? True, it had been well signalled, with US soldiers and officials repeatedly saying the border between Iraq and Syria has effectively been erased, that it makes no sense to bomb Isis in one place and leave it inviolate in another. It cannot be said that it comes as a surprise, although some had thought the Americans would wait longer before making the decision. A British decision on air strikes in Iraq will come soon, and may well be debated in a recalled parliament this week. Participation in further strikes in Syria is less certain, and the UK may well opt, like the French, to stay out at this stage. But Britain is already committed to the fight against Isis, even though the RAF has yet to conduct air strikes in Iraq, let alone Syria, so cannot, in principle, be opposed.Air strikes against Islamic State positions in Syria represent another worrying step into the unknown in the Middle East. How can there not be unease about civilian casualties, the fate of hostages, the possibility of deadly retaliatory operations on US and European soil, the setting aside of international law, and the uncertain impact on the Syrian conflict of this expansion of the campaign? True, it had been well signalled, with US soldiers and officials repeatedly saying the border between Iraq and Syria has effectively been erased, that it makes no sense to bomb Isis in one place and leave it inviolate in another. It cannot be said that it comes as a surprise, although some had thought the Americans would wait longer before making the decision. A British decision on air strikes in Iraq will come soon, and may well be debated in a recalled parliament this week. Participation in further strikes in Syria is less certain, and the UK may well opt, like the French, to stay out at this stage. But Britain is already committed to the fight against Isis, even though the RAF has yet to conduct air strikes in Iraq, let alone Syria, so cannot, in principle, be opposed.
What is the basis for that commitment? It is the conviction that Isis can be stopped and the war in Syria and Iraq settled only when the powers who have funded and fuelled it reach agreement on cutting off weapons, money and political support to their proxies, a settlement that will also entail at least a truce in the larger conflict between Sunni and Shia in the region. We need to suck out the oxygen that keeps this pyre burning. That means a grand bargain between countries, notably Iran and Saudi Arabia, until very recently implacably opposed to each other. There is evidence they are beginning to understand that between them they have created a monster which threatens them all. They must cooperate not only to destroy that monster but to restore coexistence between Sunni and Shia in the two broken states at the heart of the conflict.What is the basis for that commitment? It is the conviction that Isis can be stopped and the war in Syria and Iraq settled only when the powers who have funded and fuelled it reach agreement on cutting off weapons, money and political support to their proxies, a settlement that will also entail at least a truce in the larger conflict between Sunni and Shia in the region. We need to suck out the oxygen that keeps this pyre burning. That means a grand bargain between countries, notably Iran and Saudi Arabia, until very recently implacably opposed to each other. There is evidence they are beginning to understand that between them they have created a monster which threatens them all. They must cooperate not only to destroy that monster but to restore coexistence between Sunni and Shia in the two broken states at the heart of the conflict.
In the pursuit of this grand bargain, military action has its role. That is to blunt the momentum of Isis, to defend communities under attack, and to assist in a rollback of Isis forces where possible, all this to gain time while three linked settlements are put into place. The first is at the international level. The participation of Arab air forces in the strikes and signs of a possible rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia suggest some progress here. The second is in Iraq, where the picture so far is less encouraging. The third is in Syria, where it is less encouraging still. But in both countries, pressure from outside actors on their allies could change the situation. Those actors include the US, Britain, and other western countries. America can coordinate and provide a framework for diplomacy. Britain and other European states can help: David Cameron’s meeting with Iran’s President Rouhani in New York could be useful, for instance. But it is the regional states who have to solve this. Military action is defensible only to the extent that it gives them a chance to do so.In the pursuit of this grand bargain, military action has its role. That is to blunt the momentum of Isis, to defend communities under attack, and to assist in a rollback of Isis forces where possible, all this to gain time while three linked settlements are put into place. The first is at the international level. The participation of Arab air forces in the strikes and signs of a possible rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia suggest some progress here. The second is in Iraq, where the picture so far is less encouraging. The third is in Syria, where it is less encouraging still. But in both countries, pressure from outside actors on their allies could change the situation. Those actors include the US, Britain, and other western countries. America can coordinate and provide a framework for diplomacy. Britain and other European states can help: David Cameron’s meeting with Iran’s President Rouhani in New York could be useful, for instance. But it is the regional states who have to solve this. Military action is defensible only to the extent that it gives them a chance to do so.
• The headline of this article was amended on 29 September 2014.