Retaliation, cannot and will not be understood solely in terms of military stratagem because the incitement of warfare directly opposes the end goal of international unification. In committing our country to a military intervention of Syria, Cameron is openly tempting the possibility of further terrorist bombings in Europe yet champions his decision on the grounds it may aid the restoration of international peace and security.

Solid indications of the Islamic State’s intention to carry out further acts of terrorism within the U.K  have already materialised and bombing ISIS-controlled oilfields simply awards them greater incentive to return fire. France conducted it’s first air strikes in Syria little over two months ago and bare fresh wounds of ISIS’s astute retaliation. Likewise, the Syrian Kurds, who previously maintained a relative degree of success against IS following attacks on them earlier this year, are now being subjected to multiple suicide bombings, each instance of which increases an already devastating death toll. Can any rational politician really advocat such a divisive strategy knowing that in doing so, they are readily endangering the lives of their citizens. Perhaps initially the notion of exoticism and lack of tangible ISIS presence within UK boarders had encouraged Britons to disregard the potential urgency of the situation, however having witnessed just how seemingly vulnerable the UN became following the attacks in Paris their is simply no room for denial anymore.

Whilst I largely sympathise with Churchill’s fabled concession that an acute diligence in preparing the country for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace, readily instigating combat seems hopelessly counteractive.  Surely, having voted in favour of the 2003 war in Iraq; a measure of conflict resolution that resulted in seven successive years of protracted arms combat, Cameron might have been wiser to avoid instructing himself as the antagonist of Jihadi prerogatives.  With an ever-growing involvement in the rise of ISIS, can the House of Commons really incite the protection and security of Syrians as a wholesome justification for dropping bombs upon their homeland? Especially when they proceed to brand their domestic political opponents ‘terrorist sympathisers’ simply because they have refused to act with the same despotic intolerance we originally attributed to the leaders of the Islamic state. Responding to violent and divisive behaviour with compromised ethics and an equally destructive mindset would simply be a duplication of the hostile and pugnacious behaviour exacted by ISIS themselves. Cameron’s diplomatic pursuits, regardless of the context in which he might frame them, are in no means apposite solutions to such a delicate crisis. In attacking Syria he appears only to be facilitating the continued success of ISIS and their crimes against humanity.

Anyone in possession of even the briefest understanding of how military interventions typically play out can now rightfully anticipate Britain and its allies progressively brutalising the Syrian homeland until the weight of our reprisals overcome the Jihadist militant regime OR, in light of ISIS’s recent performance, this passage in history meets a darker conclusion.

 

“War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses”

-Thomas Jefferson