I believe that more action in the middle-east had become inevitable. Like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the Vietnam War (although this was probably fabricated), the Paris attacks have given countries such as the United Kingdom, a reason to take military action. A large number of people appear to believe that this is a just enough reason, whilst there are also those who understandably reject the notion of violence.

Deciding when military action is ‘just’ is a difficult thing. After all, according to the great Clausewitz, war is just a continuation of politics. There is also the issue that the air strikes in Syria would simply be an extension of those that are already happening in Iraq. So if Syria is wrong, then we should also question the current involvement in Iraq. However, typically Iraq has not claimed quite as many headlines as Syria has in recent times.

Despite the overwhelming vote in favour of air strikes, it could be said that the hesitancy of the country to get involved in such action can still be witnessed in the fact that only air strikes are on the agenda – for now. A more assertive action would be boots on the ground.

Air strikes alone tend to have a poor track record – especially when dealing with extremist ideologies. The Air Power theorists of the 1930s predicted that strategic bombing could win wars – that the enemy could be bombed into submission. We saw instead that in the Second World War, bombings such as those at Dresden, had no real impact on the Nazi regime. Likewise, operations Rolling Thunder and Linebacker I/II had little effect on Hanoi in the Vietnam War. Nixon wanted to bomb the North Vietnamese back to the stone age, but it still didn’t mean that they would give in. Ideology cannot be defeated, it can only be subdued. Unfortunately the politicians of today still refuse to take these lessons on board. They believe more about ‘making statements’ rather than getting real results.

Nixon wanted to bomb the North Vietnamese back to the stone age, but it still didn’t mean that they would give in.

If we should get involved in Syria and Iraq, it should be in a combined arms effort to support the Syrian and Iraqi population’s. NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction a Corps, which should then command a significant ground force of US, UK and French divisions, would probably be rather effective in this instance. We have seen that the consistent U.S. bombing over the last several months has had little significant impact on IS’ ability to function as a terrorist group. Coalition forces have already flown some 57,000 sorties, whilst competing around 8000 air strikes in the last 17 months.

In defence of the British government however; Michael Fallon did acknowledge that there will be a need for escalation, although he didn’t suggest any time frame for this. David Cameron also stated a while back that he was not some “naive neocon who thinks you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000 feet.” Although after saying this he still pursued the Libya bombings and now Syria, we can hope that he still holds this little bit of (not so) common sense. Whilst I expect the use of ground troops in Syria and Iraq might not be too popular with the general public so shortly after the armed forces reduce their efforts in Afghanistan, it would undoubtedly make their set aims more achievable. It would also be an understandable move of the government for their full spectrum dominance operations, which we are undoubtedly due to see more of after the Strategic Defence and Security Review last week.