For what it is worth, this was my contribution to the tens of thousands no doubt unread submissions to Jeremy Corbyn's consultation on what stance he/Labour should take on Syria/ISIS etc:
“Extending the UK's role in the
air war against ISIS has no clear legal basis nor is it likely to make the
streets of the UK safer. Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq today have a significant
Al-Qaida and/or ISIS presence despite (or partly because of) the UK's active role in
western military intervention in these countries. The 7/7 attack on London was
facilitated but not determined by training acquired in the territory of a
functioning state, the UK/western ally Pakistan. There is no strategy for
countering ISIS in Syria and Iraq that has a realistic prospect of convincing
Sunni Arabs that these countries can be stitched back together with political
and security guarantees for their community that lessen the appeal of violence
as a tactical weapon. The (western allied) Sunni Arab-led Gulf states have
not the will, capacity or political interest in putting themselves in the
service of this community's ambitions in these countries - they are focused on
obliterating perceptible Iranian allies in Yemen. Iran, Russia and even France
to a degree are prioritising a Shia interest in Iraq and in Syria - as a
strategic asset in the Iranian and even Russian case, and a lesser evil than
ISIS in the eyes of France. There is no UN Security Council Resolution or No 10
plan that can overcome such deep-seated differences of interest on the ground
or among the regional and international players in the conflict. Make sure that
the UK does not increase its role in essentially sectarian territorial
struggles of local actors egged on by comparably narrow regional interests, all
in the misguided belief that the particular "evil" of ISIS somehow
makes this war, this time, different and that our tools of choice will somehow,
this time, have a different impact.”
