Complex reality:Tunisians protest against terrorist attack at Bardo museum, March 2015. Demotix/Chedly Ben Ibrahim. All rights reserved.
The abhorrent Paris attacks have
reduced political and public debate on the ongoing conflict in Syria to one of
‘to bomb or not to bomb’ ISIS. And those who are against Syria airstrikes are
accused of being “terrorist sympathisers”.
In itself, the decision to bomb ISIS in Syria in
response to these attacks would be rash and reckless, driven by the belief that
only a military intervention can satisfy the public’s need for action from its
Government. Shocked by the terrible tragedies, people have an understandable
sense that ‘Something must be done’. And so we turn too easily, too quickly to
the question of military action, as if that were the only option, the only way
to do something.
Can we really defeat what the Prime Minister defined
as an “evil death cult” with more airstrikes?
ISIS-held territory is not populated only by radicalised, blood-thirsty
jihadists. They are there, certainly, but they are also in Paris, Brussels and
London. ISIS-held territory is populated, for the most part, by ordinary
civilians. ISIS-held territory is populated, for
the most part, by ordinary civilians.
Airstrikes on ISIS-held territory are dangerous and
will backfire. Airstrikes will further traumatise an already broken population.
Seeing family members and friends killed by a faceless enemy, to whom ISIS are
free to give whichever ‘face’ suits them, will no doubt result in more foot
soldiers in ISIS’ battle against the west. Airstrikes will create more
refugees, pressing into fragile neighbouring states in a region that already
cannot cope. And airstrikes and their bloody aftermath will feed into the ISIS
propaganda machine, both in Syria, and in our own societies. Add to all these risks the fact that we don’t know what comes next to fill the space left by ISIS if we do succeed.
Instead, we must recognise and accept the hard reality that there is no quick fix to the ISIS problem, there is no one solution, and that bombing is not the only option.
Airstrikes and their bloody aftermath will feed into the
ISIS propaganda machine, both in Syria, and in our own societies.
Instead of military action in a vacuum, we need a
long-term strategy that considers why ISIS has support in the first place, both
in Iraq and Syria, and in our own back yard. These reasons will not be the same
everywhere: a young Syrian man who has lost everything through war will join up
for different reasons to a young British woman who travels to Syria in the name
of jihad, and different again from the reasons an illiterate labourer from the
suburbs of Tunis decides to fight.
Intervening
on a complex reality
The Prime Minister states that complexity should not
be an excuse for non-intervention. True. But complexity is not an excuse, it is
reality, and because of this complexity, we can instead search out other
actions and in particular those local solutions which will be key in the fight
against ISIS.
This groundwork is already under way. Whilst
parliaments have been busy deliberating on the pros and cons of military
responses, local civil society groups, governments and community leaders have
been hard at work on the front line. Organisations like International Alert,
together with local counterparts, have been working to understand and address
the factors that result in young people’s vulnerability to recruitment by
extremist groups so that we can form appropriate responses. We now know that the sense of belonging and purpose and
power offered by these groups has caused young Tunisians to travel to Syria in their
thousands.
For example: over three thousand Tunisians are
estimated to have travelled to Syria to fight alongside Islamist militants. Through our work in Tunisia we now know that
young people in the poor suburbs of Tunis who participated in the Arab Spring
because they believed in the possibility of a better life, today feel cheated
by the political elites and ignored by the state. We know that the sense of
disillusionment and resentment this fostered has made these suburbs a breeding
ground for violent extremist groups to recruit support, and that the sense of
belonging and purpose and power offered by these groups has caused young
Tunisians to travel to Syria in their thousands.
Of course it is hard to judge how to respond to the
terrible situation in Syria, and no-one can claim to have all the answers. But
too often we are presented with a choice: to bomb or not to bomb as if there
was no other action available.
Surely the only way for the UK to approach this is
patiently to continue working with international, regional and local partners
to provide adequate humanitarian help to all those in need, reduce incentives
and opportunities for new fighters to join ISIS, and develop a viable
long-term, incremental strategy to restore stability and – eventually – peace
to Syria.
This will certainly take time, but further bombing is
unlikely to change that, and instead will surely make things worse.