Ever week Kevin publishes his very own “Kev’s Column” on line. This week he outlines his view on the motion that Parliament has been recalled to debate:
The most significant decision any politician can face is whether to commit our armed forces to battle and I believe that parliament should today support UK military action in Iraq.
The situation has been deteriorating for some time and it was back in June that the threat from ISIS, now IS, first hit the headlines. At one point the nightmare scenario of the Kurdish region being overrun and Baghdad captured seemed very close. Since then we have seen regular footage of atrocities and a growing humanitarian disaster filling our screens.
The UK has now been asked by the Iraqi Government to provide military support in the campaign against IS. The requested assistance is similar to what the US and a number of Arab countries are providing already, with the difference that we will not take part in operations over Syria.
The specific request removes issues around the legality of action that featured so prominently in 2003. In addition the involvement of several Arab nations gives legitimacy to action in the region and makes clear this is about us making a contribution to a much wider alliance, not going in alone or only with western allies.
The Kev’s Columns I wrote on Iraq in June and August stated my clear opposition to sending in ground forces. I remain of the view that sending our ground forces into the quagmire that is Iraq would be counterproductive, yet giving support to local ground forces in the form of air power is both necessary and timely.
In coming to a decision to support the use of airpower the alternatives must be considered first.
The first is whether diplomacy could be used to resolve the situation instead. Only the most naïve of people would, having looked at how IS have murdered and tortured their way through Iraq and Syria, believe that these are the sort of people who would negotiate a settlement based on international law and a respect of others rights. Diplomacy is therefore a non-starter.
The second is whether the problem could be contained by staying away from it. If IS were confined to one country or area based on a recognisable border then containment could be considered. Yet like Hitler’s Germany this is not a movement that is looking to dominate one nation, but dreams of conquering an Empire based on its own extreme ideology across a large swathe of the world.
If IS achieved its dream North Africa, the Middle East and parts of Southern Europe would enter a new dark age. They have already spread the horror of the Syrian Civil War to Iraq, we cannot let them spread like a plague throughout the rest of the region. As with Nazi Germany whilst IS exists its neighbours will never be left in peace.
The third is whether we would achieve more through providing international aid than military might. The RAF missions to help the Yazidi people trapped in the mountains without the basics for life did make a real difference, could a bigger aid programme provide even more impact across Iraq?
Aid supplies would help those trapped in the war zone and planning needs to be made now about how to provide them once any military action has taken place. Yet the reality on the ground is that no matter how well intentioned any aid mission into the areas currently held by IS was it will not be able to deliver an improvement in the lives of people living there.
The tragic case of David Haines and the threats to Alan Henning, a man who just wanted to help those in Syria affected by conflict, sadly indicates what could be expected if IS has not been defeated before Aid was sent in. Those affected by the conflict lack the basic provisions for life, yet the greatest threat of all to them is the army of murderous extremists roaming the area where they live.
This leaves military intervention as the only option that will make any difference to preventing the situation deteriorating further.
There will always be those who will say we should stay out and not get involved whatever the situation. Yet can we really say that the Middle East descending into flames and fellow Christians facing genocide is something we can feel comfortable ignoring? Switching off the TV does not make problems go away or prevent them from affecting Britain in the long run.
We must have a clear aim to our military mission and when it will be over. Helping the Iraqi Government to regain control of its territory and protecting the Kurdish State from being overrun should be the goals. This means a co-ordination with offensives on the ground launched by local forces. Once the IS forces have been degraded enough so these objectives can be achieved, Britain’s military role should be brought to an end. Our role is to make a contribution, not lead this coalition against IS, which regional powers must provide the majority of support for.
No matter how well targeted or planned our operations are there will be the risk of innocent lives being lost. Yet those in the area IS control who do not confirm to their extreme world and religious views are not just facing oppression, but annihilation. Innocents are losing their lives each day under IS rule, action to remove these extremists from power at least gives the hope of an end to it.
Finally it is apt that they day before this debate I was at the AGM of the Royal British Legion (Torquay Branch) in Babbacombe. The exhortation at the start of the meeting reminds us of the price paid by previous generations for the freedoms we enjoy today, along with the losses this generation has suffered in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Our armed forces are all volunteers. Whatever you view on intervention in Iraq the fact there are so many who are prepared to serve when their country calls is something that we can all take pride in.