David Cameron has made Britain’s RAF a member of the international coalition of aerial fleets that harbour the intention to liberate Iraq and Syria from the group ISIS. On Saturday a parliamentary vote was approved, permitting RAF tornados based in Cyprus to fly over Iraq in order to resolve civil unrest. With a parliamentary majority of 524 to 43 to intercept ISIS for their first mission, Britain’s involvement in Iraq and Syria’s Islamic State commenced.
ISIS has gained worldwide attention due to their behaviour towards civilians, catalysing a reaction from international bodies. Led by US military action that began seven weeks ago in Iraq, more states have joined the global coalition, including France, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and now Britain. Since ISIS materialised in Syria the border between western Iraq and eastern Syria has become unclear raising questions as to whether Britain’s approved military intervention in Iraq may seep into the neighbouring country as well.
The responsibilities which fall on international bodies to intervene in civil unrest outside their own border, particularly leading global states such as the US and Britain, may be seen as accountable for resolving a peaceful settlement and aiding a humanitarian mission. Innocent civilians subjected to ISIS’s forces may need liberation with the help of outside intervention, subsequently welcoming international assistance. It is this moral duty of care as a leading global body that may be observed as a productive justification for Britain’s RAF fleets conducting surveillance over Iraq.
However, this may unintentionally affect innocent civilians and in the long term might raise moral concerns whether military interventions are a practical methodology to pacify other military forces. International military intervention in Iraq and Syria may raise valid discussions about whether there might be other constructive solutions to prevent groups like ISIS developing.
With comparisons being drawn between Tony Blair’s involvement in Iraq in 2003 and the current state of affairs, the recent approval for RAF tornados to join the aerial coalition might be considered a repetition of Blair’s advocacy for military intervention. The former Prime Minister’s actions which led to the deployment of aerial and ground military left Iraq’s societal unrest unresolved, therefore a constructive discussion has been opened which debates whether recent military intervention may lead to the same conclusion.
From this it might be assessed that a new methodology for understanding and resolving international unrest other than answering with military solutions is needed; a progressive understanding of why current governmental stature worldwide makes individuals feel marginalised from one another nationally and internationally, rather than relating to civilisation as a mutual collective. Using military to pacify opposing military powers might continue the conveyer-belt of individuals being marginalised, prompting them to behave similarly to ISIS.
International participation to protect Iraq and Syria’s civilisations from ISIS has been led by the US with the aims of a peaceful settlement. Barack Obama, who in 2009 accepted a Nobel Peace Prizefor his aid in developing diplomatic peaceful solutions to international disorder, aims to implement passive resolutions by employing military in Iraq. This may raise productive questions about whether the US’s military solutions towards groups like ISIS are cohesive with the peaceful concepts expected to be upheld by a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
The responsibility which falls upon leading global countries to form an international and diplomatic coalition, with the aim of protecting humanitarian rights, may be perceived as a moral obligation. Britain’s and the US’s accountability for forming a peaceful settlement in Iraq and Syria might be constructively moulded with a different methodology to typical military intervention.
What constructive reconciliations might a worldwide alliance produce for civil liberation?