UN Security Council backs action against DAESH
The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a French-drafted resolution to "redouble" action against DA'ESH, the so-called "Islamic State," following last week's deadly attacks in Paris.
This is, if course, hardly a surprise. Having previously murdered innocent civilians from Britain and America, in the last month or so DA'ESH has claimed responsibility for murdering hundreds of innocent civilians from first Russia and then France, and finally executed an innocent tourist from the one remaining permanent member of the UN security council, China.
But although it is easy to be cynical, the case for doing something is extremely strong, as long as we handle it better than some of the other interventions the great powers have made in the middle east.
The Sir Humphrey syllogism -
"We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it!"
is to be avoided. That does not mean that sitting back to let DA'ESH proceed with their campaign of murder and hoping they will go away is a good idea either. We need effective action to deal with them which makes as few additional martyrs as possible.
The fact that, unlike the vast majority of Jihadi murder cults, DA'ESH has declared a caliphate and actually holds territory presents different challenges and opportunities.
Of course, if any of the great powers DA'ESH has attacked had as little regard for human life as DA'ESH does itself, the so-called "Islamic State" would no longer exist and Raqqa would be a radioactive hole in the desert. I am not for a moment advocating that approach because although we would not get another Caliphate to deal with for at least another century, we'd get far more Al Qaeda type movements and would also have set a terrible precedent.
But we do need to formulate an effective strategy to ensure that their territory is taken away from them - preferably with full involvement of local powers such as the Peshmerga and the elected government of Iraq.
This is, if course, hardly a surprise. Having previously murdered innocent civilians from Britain and America, in the last month or so DA'ESH has claimed responsibility for murdering hundreds of innocent civilians from first Russia and then France, and finally executed an innocent tourist from the one remaining permanent member of the UN security council, China.
But although it is easy to be cynical, the case for doing something is extremely strong, as long as we handle it better than some of the other interventions the great powers have made in the middle east.
The Sir Humphrey syllogism -
"We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it!"
is to be avoided. That does not mean that sitting back to let DA'ESH proceed with their campaign of murder and hoping they will go away is a good idea either. We need effective action to deal with them which makes as few additional martyrs as possible.
The fact that, unlike the vast majority of Jihadi murder cults, DA'ESH has declared a caliphate and actually holds territory presents different challenges and opportunities.
Of course, if any of the great powers DA'ESH has attacked had as little regard for human life as DA'ESH does itself, the so-called "Islamic State" would no longer exist and Raqqa would be a radioactive hole in the desert. I am not for a moment advocating that approach because although we would not get another Caliphate to deal with for at least another century, we'd get far more Al Qaeda type movements and would also have set a terrible precedent.
But we do need to formulate an effective strategy to ensure that their territory is taken away from them - preferably with full involvement of local powers such as the Peshmerga and the elected government of Iraq.
Comments