Taking the country to war is the most serious decision that any government will ever make. A decision for war involves placing British service personnel into life-threatening situations, as well as putting innocent civilians into the crossfire. In addition, there are complex and multi-faceted questions of international politics to consider. The British government has recently followed the US, France and others in authorising military action in Iraq to combat the growing threat from IS, a decision from which much debate has stemmed. A recent article in this journal, entitled “Should we be bombing ISIS”, posited that British military intervention in Iraq is wrong. Furthermore, it argued that western foreign policy over the past twenty years has been characterised by failure and that in the author’s view, geopolitical issues like IS in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Gaddafi in Libya are “not up to us” to deal with. It is this dangerous, isolationist, and misguided position that I want to take issue with. This platform of argument may be best characterised as a non-interventionist and isolationist posture, which this article will seek to engage with and challenge.

Before assessing the course of action chosen by David Cameron in Iraq, a broader point needs to be addressed. The fundamental misconception that plagues neoliberal, non-interventionist thought is that the west has caused groups like Islamic State and Al-Qaeda to hate, attack and murder. This is incorrect. The ideology of extreme Islam, which it is worth pointing out is in complete contradiction with mainstream Islam practiced by the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, views the West as an affront to its existence. It views the west as decadent, corrupt, weak and broken. It views any member of Western society as a legitimate military target worthy of destruction. To give a concrete example, RAF Airstrikes over Iraq have to be personally authorised by the Defence Secretary, and will only be authorised if the risk assessment of civilian casualties is zero. The vast majority of missions have not fulfilled this criteria and therefore have returned without delivering ordnance. In contrast, Islamic extremist groups plan operations with the specific aim of maximising civilian casualties. There is no moral parity or equivalence here. This is a pernicious, insidious and dangerous ideology that justifies acts of extreme violence in the name of religion. This article would contend that even in the event that the west suddenly decided to disband its entire collective armed forces and security services, withdrew from all military operations and training missions around the world, and sat at home watching Jeremy Kyle, groups like IS would still come and attack us. Peaceful coexistence with the west is not possible. Western ideology is predicated upon the principles of liberalism and equality. IS ideology is predicated upon intolerance and hatred. These two ideologies are mutually exclusive.

The threat since 9/11 has intensified. Islamic extremism can now be seen in west Africa in the shape of Boko Haram, in East Africa with Al-Shabab, AQAP in Yemen and Djibouti, IS in Iraq and Syria, AQAM in central Africa; the list is lengthy. To take Boko Haram as an example, the group’s name translates as “non-islamic education is forbidden”, and they take specific issue with the education of women. Rather than explore the plethora of peaceful means to express their views within the democratic process in Nigeria, they have chosen to kidnap, pillage, and slaughter innocent civilians throughout the north of Nigeria. This is nothing to do with western foreign policy in Afghanistan or Iraq. To suggest so is ridiculous. Furthermore, to do so perpetuates the insidious idea that if we left these groups alone, they would cease and desist in terrorist activities. The west has large military and economic resources. It has the ability to influence world events to a significant degree. Collectively, the west must decide, do we accept that the problems Nigeria faces are, as the article claims, “not up to us” to deal with, and allow the large-scale massacre of civilians? Do we leave democratic states like Iraq, like Kenya, like Mali and CAR to fight this battle alone?

The moral case for aiding these states is, I think, clear. What form can this aid take? The author has spoken with disdain of the large scale ground operations that have been conducted by the west in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whilst he has glossed over some of the not insignificant achievements in Afghanistan, such as the progress made on women’s rights, and the fact that since 9/11 not a single terrorist attack has been mounted on the west stemming from Afghanistan, clearly mistakes have been made. But there are many other forms of engagement with which we can aid our allies and partners across what is now a global battlefield. For example, training missions, deployments of Special Forces, specialist Intelligence and Surveillance capabilities, delivering equipment and military infrastructure, and of course, direct military intervention through air power are all options available to western governments. Intervention is not a dichotomous choice: none of these options necessitate large scale “boots on the ground” operations.

Having dispelled the myth that the west has caused Islamic extremism and set out the broader case for engagement in this struggle around the world, the specific points raised in “Should we be bombing ISIS” pertaining to the current crisis in Iraq will now be scrutinised.

Airstrikes do from time to time cause civilian casualties. This is a fact. However, the majority Kurd population in the currently contested Syrian city of Kobane has actually asked for more airstrikes. In reality, the US airstrikes are the only thing stopping IS ground forces pushing into Kobane and annihilating its Kurdish population. These airstrikes are preventing the large scale loss of civilian life. It cannot be argued that it is more just, more moral, more ethical, to leave these kurdish civilians to be wiped out by genocidal IS fighters because the west decided that the risk of civilian casualties was too high. Civilian casualties are actively being reduced by Coalition (including RAF) airstrikes, and that is something that the west should be proud of.

Secondly, the article contends that “The occupation of Iraq made way” for IS. By doing so, the implicit assumption is that had Saddam remained in power, IS would not have been able to gain a foothold in Iraq. It is delving precariously deep into the realm of counterfactual analysis to make this assumption. Arab Spring, the Libya Intervention, Turkish peace with the PKK, have all occurred since 2003. It should be remembered that IS originated as an organisation in Syria, only later flowing over the border into Iraq. However, whilst this statement can be attacked for its implicit counterfactual proposition, even if it is accepted that there is a degree of western culpability in the current Iraq crisis, surely it then follows that with that responsibility comes the obligation to aid the democratically elected Iraqi government fighting this battle. Whilst the Maliki administration also must bear significant responsibility for driving moderate sunni factions into the arms of IS, It would be a deplorable stain on the British national character to leave our ally fighting alone if we are partially responsible for creating the current situation.

The author then proceeds to attack the inclusion of our Arab allies in this 40+ nation coalition. However, this suggests that the article may have failed to consider a number of factors. IS’s strategy is to paint a narrative in which the west is attacking Islam. If it does this, it succeeds. Recruits flock to IS and it can position itself as the defender of true Islam against the crusading capitalists. The inclusion of our Arab allies denies IS the opportunity to do this. They cannot say that once again the western imperial powers are attacking Islam if Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE are flying strike missions over Syria. Therefore, it could be argued that the inclusion of these states is essential for western participation in strikes. Without it, IS wins the media battle. Additionally, this point exposes a deep inconsistency in the article: on the one hand it wants Britain to stay out of the campaign as it is “not up to us”, whilst on the other it denigrates and delegitimises the contributions of the very Arab nations that make up the ‘regional powers’ it wants to see solve the crisis themselves.

As a further point, the commander of the initial UAE Air Force strike mission was a woman. Whilst this could represent an element of pandering to western media, it is still progress on women’s rights. A woman in a senior military position would have been inconceivable in years past.

The article’s assessment of the expense of the operation is troubling. Seal argues that “It is an expensive mission in a time of crippling (and failing) austerity”. By arguing that we cannot afford this operation, he is also arguing that there is a price limit on national security, a price limit on aiding democratic regimes in peril, and a price limit on defending our core societal values against an odious and nefarious doctrine of violence. If this is so, would the author have argued against intervention in the Second World War? That decision crippled the British Empire financially, so perhaps we should have sat that one out. With our apologies to Poland, France and Russia, we’ve got a cash flow crisis and we don’t want to lose out on our free school dinners. This argument is clearly absurd. As an aside, the author uses the BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile to make an economic comparison with the NHS, arguing that with each weapons release “we lose 28 nurses”, but fails to mention that Britain has not actually deployed this weapon system in Iraq so far. His Tomahawk-to-nurse comparison is therefore misleading.

“Should we be bombing ISIS” fails to consider all the necessary factors in its analysis of the crisis. It also examines the threat posed by IS in isolation. Islamic extremism must be dealt with as a global ideology, whether that is Boko Haram in Nigeria or IS in Iraq. The author is correct on this: the time for large scale deployments of western ground forces is past. But we cannot allow the shadow of Iraq to preclude taking the necessary action against the threat of Islamic extremism. The US became an isolationist power following the First World War, and the resulting power vacuum contributed to allowing fascist regimes around the world to overwhelm the overstretched Imperial powers. Using “its not up to us” as a justification for pursuing an Isolationist foreign policy is intellectually lazy and insufficient. Britain must use smart power, and pursue a policy of engagement against this growing threat.