As the US tries to unravel the cause of the ‘unspeakable’ carnage in California, and France continues to reel from the terrible attacks in Paris, over the past week Britain, together with certain other European countries, decided to carry out bombing raids in Syria.
Shootings are, unfortunately, not uncommon in the US. But shivers were sent down many a spine when the FBI said it believed the mass killing in San Bernardino, California, – in which 14 people lost their lives – was terrorist related.
The irony is that it comes at a time when a vocal majority in the US are accusing their President of being spineless, with his steadfast refusal to put boots on the ground in Syria. He has instead stuck to a policy of aerial bombing, arguing – with the benefit of historical hindsight – that that’s a better way of addressing the situation than sending in troops.
Yet the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbin, has applied the same rationale in his opposition to the UK government’s move to send RAF fighters to Syria to take part in air strikes.
Mr Corbyn said: “I had argued, and will continue to do so, that we should redouble our efforts to secure a diplomatic and political end to the conflict in Syria…. British service men and women will now be in harm’s way and the loss of innocent lives is sadly almost inevitable.”
Despite David Cameron’s rather glib put-down – he ill-advisedly accused those opposed to airstrikes of being terrorist sympathisers – there is some merit in what Mr Corbyn is trying to say.
In Iraq, some 369 civilians were killed by international coalition forces between January and June. The UK prime minister had claimed there were no such casualties.
And the same is happening in Syria. The Maltese regional media adviser in the Middle East with Norwegian Refugee Council, Karl Schembri, pertinently tweeted that the intensified attacks have left Syrians with “nowhere to flee” to.
Meanwhile, the political hyperbole is wearing a bit thin – as Mr Cameron talked about hitting Isis – or whatever we decide to call them – in their ‘heartland’ rather than sitting back and waiting ‘for them to attack us’.
We need to face facts. Since this is not a conventional war, it is incredibly difficult to wipe out the enemy because we are not fighting for land or a country’s right to sovereignty. As San Bernardino may be the latest to prove, attacks can happen anywhere, anytime. No amount of bombing can ever put paid to that. It’s a new reality we must face and learn to live with. The long-term strategy must be to try and tackle the root causes of radicalisation and, through better inclusiveness, address them as best we can.
Yet there is an argument in favour airstrikes with a rationale as old as the planet itself: retribution and solidarity. In light of what happened to innocent French civilians, all over Europe, people want to show their support. And politicians want to be seen to be doing something.
As awful as it may sound, joining these air strikes is probably more about making Europeans feel good – in the very limited sense of not allowing the French to suffer alone – than doing something tangible to tackle the problem.
One may ask: what is the short-term alternative? The problem with that question, of course, is that there is no definitive answer. And as well intentioned as talking of intensifying efforts for a diplomatic solution may be, such an argument needs to be supported by tangible proposals.