The Guardian view on bombing Isis in Syria: the UK government should win the argument first
|
Version 0 of 1. It is only three weeks since the terrible attack on holidaymakers in Sousse in Tunisia that left 30 Britons and eight others dead, gunned down while sunbathing on the beach. Funerals are still taking place, families are still grieving and little more is known about the terrorist or terrorists involved, where they trained, or who might have influenced them, than emerged immediately after the attack. Such cruel assaults unsurprisingly provoke calls for something to be done. At the time, the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, whose enthusiasm for military engagement is earning him the title of “Bomber Fallon” in some quarters, suggested it was time to reverse parliament’s decision of two years ago and bomb Islamic State strongholds in Syria. The prime minister let it be known that he too thought it was time to revisit the question. In September, the new Labour leader is likely to have to make an early decision about whether it has become a legitimate next step in the campaign to try to defeat Isis and create space for Iraq’s legitimate government, as well as helping to head off the steady trickle of young British Muslims travelling to Syria to support the cause. But it is now clear that even as both David Cameron and Mr Fallon were calling for a new vote, both were also aware that British military personnel were in fact already involved in bombing missions over Syria. As an angry John Baron, Tory member of the foreign affairs select committee, told the BBC, this was at the least insensitivity towards parliament, if not something worse. Mr Fallon is likely to be called to explain his decision to allow an operation that breaches an express vote of parliament before MPs leave on their summer holidays on Tuesday. If the human rights charity Reprieve had not made a freedom of information request – and FoI itself is other democratic innovation that Mr Cameron is now hoping to persuade MPs to limit – the secret would have stayed with the military and politicians in the know. It is only because Reprieve is diligently tracking the activities of British military embedded with the US armed forces that the government is no longer able to pretend that British personnel only take part in the bombing of Isis positions in Iraq, as requested by the Baghdad government. It is not for individual pilots or aircrew to refuse to take part in missions that are not authorised by the British parliament. That is rightly a decision for Whitehall. Mr Fallon argues that since Isis respects no territorial boundaries, it is impossible to fight it effectively while remaining a stickler for diplomatic protocol. But if he wants to make that case, he should do so in the House of Commons, where his critics will ask him to explain the source of legitimacy of such raids, and query who will benefit from them. In Iraq, government forces are on the ground. It is they who call in air strikes, with the purpose of achieving clear and distinct objectives. It is far from certain who would perform that role in any attacks on Syria, where the Americans insist they are not operating in collusion with Bashar al-Assad. It is never easy, in the aftermath of any terrorist attack, to keep on defending the argument for taking action only if it is both proportionate and legitimate. But in the persistent climate of post-Iraq cynicism that still infuses the politics of both Westminster and the wider public, it has never been more important. |