Wargames - the motivations for war in Syria

“What’s my motivation?” is the cliché actors ask to justify their creative choices. Sadly, when it comes to the theatre of war, it is a question seldom answered.

Asking the question of Tony Blair in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, has proven particularly difficult, with the Chilcot inquiry still awaiting publication. Blair may have made a hint of an apology to an American broadcaster last month, but the reasons behind his decision to go to war without the support of the UN, his full cabinet or the people is still under scrutiny.

It seems strange, then, that some of the loudest cries for war in Britain in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Paris come from Blair’s own stable. The supposed high-profile liberals are seeing red. Are their memories short, or does the need for retribution for Paris outweigh rational thought?

The motivation of the adversary seems to be ignored too. After the attack on the twin towers in 2001, reflections on the effectiveness of American foreign policy quickly gave way to sabre rattling and restrictions on civil liberties. But at what point did the response to 9/11 make the world safer? Haven’t the conflicts and crackdowns destabilised relations in the Middle East and radicalised formerly disparate groups?

The Blairite fantasy about liberal war in the name of freedom was shot down in flames with the use of ‘shock and awe’ in Iraq. An estimated 158,000 Iraqi citizens were killed, and what had been a multi-ethnic country was splintered as a result. 

By the time the Syria conflict had broken out, 10 per cent of Syria’s population were refugees from Iraq. 

The Iraq invasion, Guantánamo Bay and extraordinary rendition have inevitably fuelled the flames of a death cult whose motivation seems alarmingly simple.

The self-proclaimed Islamic State aims to create a caliphate which unites all Muslims under their bloodthirsty banner. Their tactics in this are fundamentally flawed because they continue to massacre fellow Muslims, hardly the most effective of recruiting campaigns imaginable. The 41 dead in Beirut on the same day as the Paris attack and the inconceivable slaughter of 1,700 Shia soldiers in Tikrit last year have horrified those in the Middle East as much, if not more, than anyone else.

Proof of the rejection of this fascist interpretation of Islam among fellow Muslims, if any was needed, is manifest in the half a million or more people who have fled the Middle East to come to Europe this year alone.

Yet countries are now lining up to turn these people away. Citizens smarting under austerity are getting the pitchforks out and attacking mosques, equating victims with their persecutors.

A revisionist retreat to the binary ‘us and them’ narrative is exactly what IS want. Attacking the enemy of Assad could be an effective recruiting tool for IS, and they know it.

This barbarous sect forms only a fraction of the rebel forces fighting Assad’s forces in Syria. Amongst the rubble around Damascus some groups are tentatively discussing a ceasefire and truce. Yesterday in his statement to the Commons David Cameron said 70,000 "moderate Syrian forces" would provide ground support to British air strikes, but who are these moderates? Who and what do they fight for? It is safe to assume, if they exist, that their motivation isn't to be pawns in a British power play. 

Every carpet bombing of an already demolished street, every drone assassination, every refugee turned away, is another point to their reign of terror. Let's be realistic - bombing IS makes a terrorist attack in the UK more likely, not less.

“We have to act to keep our people safe,” David Cameron said, in his statement to the House in response to the Paris attacks. But if our motivation is liberté, égalité, fraternité, we need to think carefully how we act.