Author: Kanan Parida, Deputy Editor-in-Chief

In a stunning victory, 397 MPs voted for and 223 voted against PM David Cameron’s call for air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria. Just hours after the Commons vote, RAF Tornado Jets carried out their first air strikes in Syria. In a vociferous debate, there were many compelling cases made for both sides. There were calls for solidarity and likewise questions about morality. However, one of the greatest flaws was on the question of the effectiveness of airstrikes.

In the question of whether air strikes would be enough to drive out the Islamic State, the answer is a resounding “no”. However, in a surprisingly timely turn of events the Joint Intelligence Committee has come up with a figure of 70,000 “moderate” fighters in Syria with whom the RAF could coordinate. This figure has been met with wide-ranging scepticism. Even if there were 70,000 opposition fighters, they do not formulate a single group but a range of opposition groups, many of whom are fighting between themselves. Even Conservative MP Julian Lewis agreed that without a clear military strategy the UK’s intervention would not be consequential. Just two years ago, the British parliament held this very same vote over whether or not to bomb Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and is now doing the same with regards to the Islamic State.

David Cameron remarked that all those opposed to the air strikes were “terrorist sympathisers”, but that severely undermines the gravity of the situation and the institution which allows the British government to vote on this action. We are on the same side. Whether Labour or Tory, no one believes that the Islamic State should not be held accountable. It is not a question of sympathising with extremists, it is recognition that there must be a clear strategy and with air strikes the UK is doing more grievous harm than good.

On the question of morality, it has been pointed out that it is utterly shameful to sit by and watch as the IS decimates Syria piece by piece, especially in the wake of the recent Paris attacks. Article 51 of the UN Charter has been cited as evidence for the need for solidarity with France, the need to contribute to military action against the Islamic State. However, is the right solution air strikes? What will they achieve? If the UK has a moral obligation to contribute to military action in Syria does this mean it also has the moral obligation to watch as thousands of civilians are killed?

Bombing the Islamic State will not work. The UK joining the bombing campaign on ISIL will have a two-fold effect. Firstly, as shown by the US action in Syria, bombing ISIL has only led to more recruits and more land being taken. According to official statistics released by the Pentagon, US forces have executed 8,300 air strikes resulting in 129 ISIL tanks destroyed, 260 oil infrastructure facilities hit and Operation Inherent Resolve, which has been under way for 17 months, is not nearly concluded. Moreover, ISIL is but one manifestation of Islamist extremism. The threat posed by terrorism is merely symptomatic of much graver issues. Destroying the Islamic State, whether by bombing or by deploying troops on the ground, will not get rid of these underlying problems. A new Islamic State, ISIL, or Daesh will emerge in its place, much as the Islamic State itself emerged from the ashes of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Military technology has undoubtedly progressed and as Conservative MP Johnnny Mercer put it “[Britain] is using very precise, very lethal weapons”. Yet, a significant dilemma is that these weapons rely strongly on intelligence. The Russians have already destroyed the only significant ISIL infrastructure, the oil storage facilities and refineries. The IS is virtually invisible, having hidden itself amongst the population. Bombing Raqqa is not going to change the situation.

“We are against the UK strikes on Raqqa. All the world is bombing Raqqa and the UK will not make any change in the situation. If the UK wants to help people then it should accept Syrian refugees and not close the border.” – Citizens journalism group, Raqqa SL

As Sir Gerald Kaufman poignantly stated, “I am not going to be party to killing innocent civilians for what will simply be a gesture. I’m not interested in gesture politics, I’m not interested in gesture military activity, I’m interested in effective military activity, and if that is brough t before this house, I vote for it.”

That is what the UK has done with its pledge of “solidarity”. A military gesture, a show of strength is not enough. The resulting carnage, the countless deaths and the blood on our hands is not worth this show of solidarity. The Islamic State must be defeated. There is no denying this fact but we must carefully consider how to approach this. A reluctance to deploy military forces on the ground should not be met with a solution of simply “bombing” ISIL. There must be a greater strategy involved. Opposing air strikes in Syria does not make me a “terrorist sympathiser”; it makes me someone who is tired of the mindless bombing of innocent civilians for a symbolic victory.