Bombing Daesh in Syria?

The possibility of a vote in Parliament on bombing Daesh (also known as ISIL/ISIS/IS) in Syria is coming with talk in the news of which Labour MPs might back it, in a potentially close vote. I think we need to debate this too. It is likely to be a free vote or one with significant rebellions on all sides. Should our MPs be whipped?

The difference between attacking Daesh in Iraq and Daesh in Syria seems to be a legal one not a moral one. The former is in support of Iraq/Kurdish Iraq at their request, and the latter would arguably require a UN Security Council resolution which may be unlikely. And practically there are Iraqi ground forces to support from the air. In Syria, this is less clear, and bombing alone never seems to achieve anything.

If a plan to restabilise Syria requires the West and Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia to work together, will it ever happen? And is there any workable alternative? Is there simply no point bombing until some sort of plan for Syria exists?

Is the Middle East the mess that it is because of Western foreign policy mistakes or malice? Largely, no. Of course history is full of mistakes, and might otherwise have turned out differently, but let's not deny the actors of the region their agency, or assume that everything is about us: relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia are not a proxy for relations between either and the West.

Western foreign policy in prosecuting the Cold War saw us close to some brutal regimes, but this hardly explains people wanting to join something far more brutal in response; you don't protest against the death toll in the Muslim world by joining an organisation that kills mostly Muslims.

Daesh is less a result of our errors, than a reaction against what we get right: the values of tolerance, freedom, peace, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is easy to criticise foreign policy with hindsight, judging that every attempt to engage or confront was wrong and the opposite was obviously correct; that every ally less liberal than ourselves represents a shameful capitulation; that we never try hard enough to win allies.

For me, it is right, in principle, to react with force to the events in Paris. Not to do so will be seen as weakness. Daesh see this as a war; they threatened to send a million refugees our way and they delivered - they have now murdered 129 people of a NATO ally we are pledged to defend.

But we are better than them - we don't do random violence. We need military targets and military objectives that work towards the defeat of Daesh and the possibility of a peaceful, stable Syria. History has us getting this wrong.

* Joe Otten is a councillor in Sheffield and Tuesday editor of Liberal Democrat Voice