Air strikes in Iraq: the battle of ideas is what really matters

It was impossible to tolerate the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant any longer

The jets of II Squadron were flying their first combat missions over Iraq after Parliament sanctioned British air strikes Photo: Heathcliff O'Malley

There is a sense of relief across the political spectrum that Britain is finally doing something in Iraq. It was impossible to tolerate the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) any longer, and now the UK finds itself part of an international effort with parameters of action that, the public is assured, will not lead to long-term troop presence or nation-building. Thanks in part to a rigorous parliamentary debate, the British people understand why they are in Iraq somewhat better than they did in 2003. As David Cameron told the UN, Isil poses “a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom”, and the fact that the Iraqi government requested help gave “a clear legal base” for action.

But what will happen next? It is obvious that Mr Cameron would have preferred Britain to have joined the wider effort against Isil that extends into Syria. He was prevented from doing so by the posturing of Ed Miliband, who took the nonsensical position of stating that war against Isil in one country is acceptable but not in another. The reality, as Matthew d’Ancona implies, is that the fight against Isil will require action across the porous Iraqi border. There is no point entering a war unless a combatant is prepared to win.

Winning will not only be a matter of dropping bombs. A political solution must be reached, too. Part of that will involve ending the financing of terror by other countries in the region. Sir Malcolm Rifkind writes in this paper that the West has to address “the ambivalence of some of our Arab allies in their policy towards Isil and other terrorist organisations”. Qatar, for example, is alleged to have provided financial support to radicals in Syria and Libya. The Qatari Emir has denied this, but admits that there is some discrepancy between how many of his countrymen define extremism and how the West defines it.

Major General Jonathan Shaw, a former commander of British forces in Iraq, has spoken of a conflict within the Islamic world that contributes to the continuing destabilisation of the region. So long as power brokers continue to fight over territory or theological differences, there can be no peace. For a long-term solution, then, the West has to help foster an alternative culture. The first step, undoubtedly, is to aid in the destruction of Isil. But, as General Sir Richard Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff, tells us, “discrediting the concept of Islamic State is [equally] vital… We need to offer a competing vision, a more attractive vision. Then there are grounds to hope that we can build a safer and more stable future for the people of the Middle East and for sections of our society here at home.” Indeed, that battle for hearts and minds will have to take place beyond Iraq and Syria – as the shocking number of Britons volunteering to fight for Isil indicates.

Politicians have often warned that we ought to be prepared for this current conflict to last for years. Obviously, we wish that were not so. The best way to bring this war to a swifter end would be to apply all the necessary military and political pressure – with a mix of determination and common sense.