Isis threat to UK 'will only increase' if UK starts air strikes in Syria

As MPs debate the issue in the Commons, David Cameron says Isis presents a 'direct threat' to the UK - but experts on the conflict in the region say air strikes are not the answer

David Cameron has set out his case for Britain to wage war in Syria, saying that the Isis militant group is “not a threat that can be negotiated away”.

If the RAF begins air strikes against Isis in Syria, it will become the fourth country in the region where Britain has intervened militarily since the turn of the century, following the campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

None of those conflicts receive a mention in the Prime Minister’s response, published today, to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s criticism of his “incoherent” strategy so far on Syria.

And it raises concerns that Britain may not have learnt the lessons that those forays into foreign wars could provide.

What can Britain offer in Syria?

The Prime Minister says British jets offer targeted strikes, including the Brimstone missile, with a level of capability that “even the US does not possess”.

Mr Cameron has said it is “illogical that our aircraft are deployed to carry out the important task of finding and tracking high value targets but cannot complete the task of launching strikes against them”.

Conservative estimates suggest Britain has fewer than 50 manned jets available to deploy against Isis in Syria – around half what Russia says it has committed to the conflict.

That pales into insignificance, however, compared to what the US has been offering since the start of “Operation Inherent Resolve”, however. Its coalition has carried out 57,301 sorties in Iraq and Syria, of which 8,289 resulted in bombs being dropped – two-thirds by American jets.

What Britain can offer on the battlefield, however, may not be as great as what it can offer away from it.

Speaking to the Today programme this week, former Royal Marine Paddy Ashdown suggested his Liberal Democrats could support British action in Syria if it was combined with a diplomatic push to get the Gulf states – with which the UK has strong business links – more involved.

“The last Saudi plane seen flying as part of the coalition over Syria was three months ago, the last Qatari plane was nearly a year ago,” Lord Ashdown said.

“If we’re going to send British aircraft in – and I think maybe we should – the very least we can do is ask the Gulf states to play their part.”

Will air strikes make a difference?

The Prime Minister has been challenged to show that if Britain gets involved in the Syrian conflict, it does so as part of a strategy that has the potential to be “war-winning”.

But regardless of how many more bombs the UK can offer to drop compared to what is already there, experts are extremely dubious about the effective of air strikes in the first place.

“You cannot bomb an organisation back to the Middle Ages which already lives in the Middle Ages,” says Dr Andreas Krieg, King’s College’s expert on the Middle East at its Department of Defence Studies.

“Air strikes have been widely unsuccessful in eroding the capability of Isis,” Dr Krieg told The Independent. “The group offers a popular appeal amid chaos, desperation and a lack of alternatives.

“You cannot target this appeal militarily, but only by building and supporting a socio-political narrative other than the Assad regime.”

Dr Krieg said air strikes need to come with “a ground component, one that has legitimacy in the eyes of locals, one that is able and willing to provide security to local communities”.

But former military commanders, quoted in The Times, say it could take as many as 50,000 troops to take even a modestly-sized city such as Raqqa from Isis.

Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, the former chief of the defence staff, said an effective ground force has to include “the one army that’s reasonably competent – which is President Assad’s”. “If a deal could be struck whereby Assad agreed to elections after Isis is defeated, why should they not agree?” he said.

Will it make Britain safer?

Speaking in the Commons today, Mr Cameron said the UK “cannot afford” to sit back and allow Isis space in Syria, saying the group represents a “direct threat” to people in Britain.

But writing in this newspaper, Patrick Cockburn said the limited efficacy of British air strikes did not necessarily mean “the impact on Britain will be small”.

“It is always dangerous to dabble in war - and that is just what Britain did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – because the response of the other side is unpredictable and may be disproportionate,” he said.

Issue 12 of Isis' propaganda magazine, Dabiq, boasted about attacks against France and Russia as 'punishment' for those countries' air strikes

Isis has seen the slaughter in Paris as “a great success”, Cockburn writes. “This makes it all the more likely that British people will be the target of retaliation, with tourists the easiest victims.”

The longer Isis has a “safe haven” in Syria, Mr Cameron has said today, “the greater the threat it will pose” overseas.

And while the experts agree that the world cannot let Isis grow uncontested, Dr Krieg said air strikes from afar make countries “more vulnerable” as Isis has shifted its focus “to punish states that have taken action against it”.

“Britain and the international community has to stop standing by idly in Syria and Iraq – but the military burden has to be borne by locals and regional players,” he said.

“Britain should invest in counter radicalisation, a more liberal stance towards Muslim migrants, and intelligence,” Dr Krieg said. “Helping those fleeing ISIS while at the same time helping to build socio-political alternatives in Syria is more effective than air strikes.”