Should the UK increase military operations in Syria after Paris attacks?

EVENTS have moved quickly since the shocking Parisian rampage which claimed so many lives.

The French political hierarchy quickly labelled the ISIS terror atrocity an “act of war”.

With the candles on the memorials to the victims still burning in the French capital’s Place de la Rpublique, the United Nations Security Council has now backed a French-sponsored resolution designed “to combat by all means this unprecedented threat”.

The crucial development will have been music to PM David Cameron’s ears as he seeks support for a wider offensive against ISIS in Syria.

But should Britain allow itself to be drawn into a wider conflict?

Many fear merely wiping out the death cult will do nothing to make the world a safer place. Others argue it’s difficult to carry out atrocities if no-one is left alive to pull a trigger.

Here some of Britain’s key policy makers and thinkers argue whether the Paris attacks should result in an escalation of Britain’s military involvement in Syria.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British ambassador to the UN

“THE world powers have now got to sort out their priorities. Because of Paris, because of Brussels and because of Beirut last week they have got to make IS the priority over Assadd.

“The political solution for Syria must take a bit longer.

“They now need to take more urgent action to deal with terrorism. But, it can’t just be done from the air. There has to be work on the ground to deny IS the territory that they are now holding.

“We have to take account of the way the world is going, it is fragmenting in certain ways. Nation states are giving too much priority to their own domestic affairs and their own immediate interest.

“I think this is a very strong signal that within the context of the United Nations, big powers in particular have to start working together even if they don’t like each other.

“There are things that have to be got right on the ground, and security and stable development of economies is a collective exercise now under globalisation.

“We have to put some of our immediate national interest aside to make this the priority.” Andy McNab, former SAS sergeant

“THE chances of something like the Paris attacks happening in Britain are continuous.

“Without doubt there have been plans to do it here as well. It’s an on-going war.

“The scary thing is that anyone and everyone is a target. The Paris attacks were indiscriminate.

“The terrorists we are dealing with now are harder to interact with and discover.

“There is no debating society with these guys. It’s very clear cut what they are doing.

“In order to counter them we need to attack the terrorists physically in places like Syria.

“Declaring war on IS is a conscious action.

“America and Russia now have President Hollande to bring them to the table and join together.

“It will be interesting to see what happens now with the British Government.

“David Cameron won’t ask for a vote unless he knows he’s going to win that vote.

“Otherwise we would look weak internationally.

“It would have been interesting to see what the Government’s reaction would have been if the attacks had happened here.

“Young men and women have been incredibly motivated by these terrorist groups.

“If they’ve got the weapons we won’t stop them.

“We need to find out why normal kids become jihadists and stop that too.”

Lord Robertson, former Secretary General of Nato

“I hope the resolution encourages the

Government and the opposition to look favourably on air strikes.

“This is a resolution signed up to by everyone and gives legal authority for action.

“As far as the response that has to take place, this county is already bombing IS targets in Iraq and has only limited affect on their control inside Syria.

“So targeted attacks are legal there as well and we should be part of coalition that is involved in doing it.

“There needs to be a political framework as an outcome and that is still being worked on, but in the meantime we have to hurt IS where they are based and where they are planning external attacks.

“If we don’t act against IS in Syria we can expect more trouble, more refugees, more killing in the region and the extension of the Syrian conflict into our country and others.

“To those who say bombing would result in the creation of more IS supporters, I would say there are always those who speak of consequences. But the consequence of doing nothing is worse.” Jeremy Corbyn MP, Labour leader

“DAVID CAMERON told parliament this week that last Friday’s atrocities in Paris, claimed by IS, made the case for British military action in Syria stronger.

“Everyone, including British Muslims, wants to see the defeat of this murderous and reactionary cult.

“Labour will consider the proposals the government brings forward, including its responses to the Foreign Affairs select committee report opposing British air strikes in Syria.

“But in our view, the dreadful Paris attacks make the case for a far more urgent international effort, to reach a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war, and end the threat from IS.

“It is the conflict in Syria and the consequences of the Iraq war which have created the conditions for IS to thrive and spread its murderous rule.

“And it is through political agreement to end the civil war, negotiated with all the external powers, backed by the United Nations and with Syrians in control of their own country, that ISIS will be isolated and defeated.

“Action against IS that sticks on the ground, that destroys the virus and reclaims hearts and minds, as well as territory, will have to come from within the Arab and Muslim world itself.

“It can’t be seen as an external intervention, although the international community has a part to play.”World on the brink of war against Islamic State – click here to read moreMazhar Khan, Muslim Council of Scotland

“FOLLOWING the horrendous atrocity committed by ISIS in Paris last week, the UN Security Council’s adoption of a resolution to “redouble” action against the Islamic State group increases the risk of intensifying bombing in the region.

“For Scottish Muslims IS are the epitome of evil, a gross abomination of the true teachings of Islam which completely reject the targeting of innocent people, regardless of their faith.

“Yet while bombing IS may well incapacitate or even finish them, is it guaranteed to end the culture of extremism in the region?

“Since 9/11 the world has seen much of the Muslim world inflamed with similar bombing runs, yet what have we learnt?

“Al Qaeda might be an insignificant force today, but it has mutated into an even uglier monster called IS. What guarantee is there we won’t see a repeat of this from our new efforts?

“The real challenge is not eradicating IS, with all its monstrosity and carnage, we know that can be achieved swiftly through another round of “shock and awe”.

“However, eradicating its lifeline is the real challenge before us.

“Muslims have suffered tremendously at the hands of extremists, they have been the largest victims of IS atrocities.

“Eradicating IS may well bring peace and security to Paris, London and Washington. But without a long term solution addressing the humane needs of the people of those regions, the risk of a new monster emerging will remain.”

Professor Rosemary Hollis, Professor of International Politics

“The vote reinforces the line that the French want to take and the British want to support but it is not a massive change.

“Were the UN to have voted unanimously and explicitly for force, that would have been more significant.

“I think what is missing in all of this, and what Jeremy Corbyn has tried but failed to express, is what happens after Islamic State.

“It is all very well to redouble your efforts to eradicate it, but what does it mean for civilians inside that area? Also what does it mean for the future governance of that area?

“Killing people may eliminate your immediate problem, but does tend to create new recruits and force an organisation and morph into a new version of itself.

“Neither Iraq or Syria is functioning well as a state at the moment.

“Kurds in northern Iraq have been instrumental in rolling back the IS influence in that part of the country. But they are one of several paramilitaries who have been co-operating for now, but that will change with the end of the Islamic State.

“So there isn’t a stable, neat administration in waiting for the liberated areas.”Sunday Post Opinion: History will be watching our actionsTHE UN Security Council asking nations to redouble efforts to destroy Islamic State in Syria may go down as one of the significant turning points in recent world history.

It isn’t quite a declaration of international war, but it does bring all-out conflict a step closer. The UN’s wording is to “eradicate” IS’s “safe haven”.

The anger, frustration and desire for revenge is understandable. The Paris and Mali attacks on innocent civilians are cowardly acts, not the actions of warriors in battle.

A government’s first responsibility is to protect its people. To effectively do that, the IS terror training camps have to be shut down.

We are angry. We ache for the people of Paris. We want this to stop. There has to be a response, the members of the UN Security Council have recognised that.

However, this is not the time for that response to be driven by emotion, as difficult as that sounds.

Any action taken, and the long-term ramifications of that action, must be carefully thought through by our politicians.

There are several questions that must be faced, understood and fully answered.

Will stepping up action in Syria bring us the resolution we want a full end to shameful attacks on unsuspecting concert-goers and caf customers?

Will the cost eventually be that to properly “eradicate” terror training camps our soldiers must go in on the ground?

If it does mean boots on the ground, are we prepared to accept the casualties that will inevitably follow?

And, finally, will such actions help bring about long-standing peace in the Middle East or will they simply result in another Iraq or Afghanistan?

In short, are we prepared to meet violence with violence, and to live or die with the consequences? If the answer is yes, then the full power of Western military might will be released.

This resolution is the moment for which the second decade of the 21st Century will be remembered as will our actions that follow.What you need to know about the UN Security Council’s resolution on IS – click here