To suggest that the UK Coalition government has been hesitant in involving itself in the current attempts to defeat Islamic State is an understatement. An inability to go beyond verbal and written statements of condemnation has ensured a dent in British reputability on a global scale, especially as the US, once considered Britain’s key partner, continues to lead an on-going air strike campaign against Islamic State across Syria and Iraq.

Perhaps tenacious behaviour is justified. The possibility of a fourth military commitment in the Middle East in eleven years is not one to be welcomed with open arms. Excessive monetary obligations to fight, the loss of life of British personnel and another open-ended commitment so soon after a promised final withdrawal in Afghanistan this year. The reasons to have avoided or at least delayed the process of military firepower to support the work of an ‘Obama Coalition’ in the region are warranted.

As Parliament debates the possibility of extending support to the international fight against the militant group, three principle reasons should be offered to advise an alternative perspective on the issue, and as a consequence to recommend a less placid strategy. The UK needs to fight with the forty-state strong anti-IS coalition. Focus shall be given to Britain’s role as a beacon of democracy, the importance of addressing the long-term problem of Islamism, and the necessity to justify continuing high levels of military expenditure.

David Cameron was able to state that there is a need to “act, but act differently” whilst speaking this week at the UN. He suggested that we “must not let past mistakes become an excuse for indifference or inaction.” Indeed, if based on principle alone it is very difficult to remain inactive. For Britain to allow the beheadings of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines to pass with no more than written statements of disapproval not only raises questions regarding Britain’s damaged self-image, but also their role as a primary protector of liberal values. The retribution sought according to current national approval ratings must be used as fuel and a ground to become more supportive to the anti-IS cause. A precedent should be set in defeating a disorganised IS movement in order to not only deter future similar acts of terror towards British and American nationals (and generally), but also to legitimise the continued dominance of democracy promulgated by Western statesman.

Addressing the long-term problem of Islamic extremism makes Britain’s submission to the anti-IS effort vital. Further acts of hesitancy will only allow the Islamism movement to grow stronger and more formidable. It is estimated that 500 British civilians have been recruited and consequentially have migrated to the participate in the ‘holy war’ on behalf of Islamic State. Figures which are only likely to grow and inevitably filter back to the British Isles US Officials already reported this week the short-term problem of a small Al-Qaeda splinter group Khorosan, has the potential to become a much more severe long-term national security threat. That is, if you do not consider it to be one already.

As Tony Blair noted in his 6,500-word essay for the Blair Faith Foundation, we have to fight groups like IS otherwise we will ‘mitigate the problem, but not overcome it.’ The threat is bigger than IS. A consensus appears to be have been reached on the necessity to develop a ‘comprehensive strategy’ to fight religious extremism – the biggest threat to twenty-first century international stability. Yet Britain’s involvement in the initial processes of elimination is necessary in ensuring that the eventual strategy addressing religious tolerance can be implemented effectively. Only in fully fulfilling these criteria can the materialising of Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ prophecy be avoided. Britain should be prepared to carry this particular ‘fight through to the end’ if only to ensure the flame of radicalism does not become irrepressible.

The necessity to justify ongoing high levels of military expenditure in the wake of a ‘war on terror’ is a final justification offered here as to why the UK Government must press for military action in the Commons on Friday. The fact that France, who currently spend two million short of the UK’s current defence budget, (£60bn – BBC 2014) but are able to act resolutely in the continuing air strikes across Iraq and Syria, can lead to questioning of Britain’s ambition of global leadership. The cuts made following the Defence Review of 2010 have certainly signposted a re-negotiation of Britain’s place in the new global order. And as critics of the review argued at the time, the ongoing transition has made Britain an increasingly unreliable military partner for US, exemplified fully by the current crisis. Should this pattern persist and should the UK continue to refrain from a tangible protection of liberalism in the Middle Eastern region (and more generally), it becomes harder to argue against the idea that British leverage is turning into something of the past. Certainly a legacy that Cameron’s own Coalition government would not want to be associated with. Cameron’s next move represents a vital indicator as to the direction of British foreign policy for the next decade and beyond.

Louis Montebello