WHATEVER the bombing of Syria is, it certainly isn’t war.
Like a blind man trying to eat soup with a fork, the attack on terrorists in a faraway country is bound to be messy. It is not based on a coherent strategy and is doomed to make matters worse. Neither is it justifiable.
When I watched the debate in Parliament, I was astounded how little information was given to the country about the real reason for bombing. It seemed as though David Cameron relied on abusing his opponents and scaring the public rather than engaging in balanced debate. He used the argument that voting for bombing makes you a moderate and that voting against it makes you an extremist.
Like the invasion of Iraq and Libya, the bombing of militants is destined to fail and it cannot be justified.
It is amazing that Mr Cameron can denounce bombing by Russia, saying only weeks ago that it will lead to further radicalisation and terrorism, and then change his mind so quickly.
What is the difference between Russian or British bombs? Do British bombs not make more radicals and terrorists?
Mr Cameron seems to believe that by destroying lives in a faraway country, lives will be saved back at home. This sort of politics can never be used to justify war. It is a common belief that the only way to defeat Islamic fundamentalists is to beat them on the ground. This would mean the involvement of our troops. That is something that the British people would find very hard to swallow.
Knee-jerk politics are never as good as a measured response. Bombing alone only serves to destroy property and kill people. It cannot hold back new forces coming in when the bombing stops. On these grounds alone, bombing is not justifiable.
I find it hard to believe that no one in politics realised that the toppling of tyrants like Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi would only serve to inflame an already dangerous situation.
Any fool could see that removing these people from power was going to form a vacuum in which dangerous fundamentalist elements would ferment. The military action against these countries is directly responsible for the rise to power of Daesh (ISIL).
In Syria, President Assad ran a largely secular state in a peaceful environment. To topple him would leave the whole region open to being taken over by fundamentalists.
I often wonder what the long-term game plan is in the Middle East? Are there secret supplies of oil buried deep under the Syrian countryside waiting to be drilled? Has someone discovered that the Golan Heights are really made of gold? Do the Rothschilds want to open a Central Bank of Syria?
We never seem to see Russia, America, and the United Kingdom wanting to get involved in the humanitarian crisis in central Africa. Perhaps that is because central Africa is of no economic value to anyone.
It is not Daesh in Syria that poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom. Nor do the attacks on Paris provide emotional justification for any military action. There is no way that this intervention can be justified using the excuse that by bombing Daesh we are protecting people on the streets of Leeds and Sheffield. On the contrary action such as this only serves to aggravate an already volatile situation.
The real and justifiable war on terror has to be fought in the mosques and communities in our cities and towns. Unlike the Bible, the Koran has never been open to theological criticism.
The Koran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with non-believers for the sake of Islamic rule. This is not the theology for a modern world and any literal interpretation is dangerous.
It was Napoleon who said: “Religious wars are basically people killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend.”
However, there has to be fairness in Middle East politics and the West has to learn when to mind its own business.
It was Lord Balfour who had the idea of having a national home for the Jews in Palestine.
This relatively new promised land can be cited as being the cause of much of the trouble in the Middle East today. Therefore, if it is right and fitting for the Jews to have their independent homeland, then surely Islamists have a right to an independent Islamic state?
All our home-grown jihadists could then go and live there making the streets of Britain a safer place. After all, if they do not like our culture, liberalism and freedoms then they should leave and not try to change a free democratic society into a Sharia state.
If the Islamists do not like the Western culture in which they live, surely it is far better for them to be assisted to go and live in a land that supports their religious values? Perhaps an Islamic State may be a way forward for world peace?
GP Taylor is a writer and broadcaster and can be followed @GPTaylorauthor.