Why I don't agree with Nick on ISIL

While not being too pleased with an e-mail I received today from the Scottish Liberal Democrats, promoting something purporting to be an engagement with members on the referendum campaign, a further communique from Nick Clegg arrived this evening that was more troubling.

On the subject of ISIL, the leader sent out the following e-mail to the party membership:

Dear Andrew,

On Friday Parliament is to be recalled to debate Britain joining the coalition of nations who have launched air strikes against the ISIL terrorist organisation in Iraq.

Liberal Democrat MPs will be supporting Britain joining this coalition for three reasons. Firstly, the threat from ISIL to Britain has already been made clear by the sickening sight of British hostages being executed on television. Secondly, unlike the 2003 war in Iraq this intervention is legal - we are responding to a direct request for help from the legitimate Government of Iraq and Parliament will vote before any action is taken. Thirdly, we’re acting as part of a broad coalition of countries, including many Arab countries, to deal with a real and immediate threat.

I know that given our party’s history this will evoke strong feelings. Earlier, I recorded an interview for broadcasters in which I explained why we were supporting this action. You will see some of this on the news this evening but I wanted party members to see the interview in full.

This is obviously a developing situation and I will be in touch with you again over the coming days.

Thank you,

Nick Clegg

Leader of the Liberal Democrats

The problem with Nick's position - as with that of the Blair government in 2003 - is that it shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq. It fails to consider ISIL's possible motivations for committing these sickening murders, and may in fact be providing the very response ISIL are seeking. It also fails to recognise the tribal nature of Iraq, the current political situation and the reality of dangerous power struggles emerging between rival factions. The rise of ISIL has as much to do with these power games, and of undermining the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi; it also is a product of the West's inability to deliver anything resembling a peaceful or democratic Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion.

Furthermore, it takes the misguided perspective that an enemy of my enemy must be my friend. This is no basis for international military action in the 21st century.

As for the notion that this conflict is legal - I have two points to raise. The first is that Clegg is seeming to suggest that the Liberal Democrats would have supported the 2003 invasion if it had been "legal". (I wouldn't have - there were several reasons why the action was flawed and reckless.)  Secondly, the fact that something is legal does not make it desirable. Thirdly, the existence of a "coalition of countries" does not mean that alternative means of resolving the issue should be overlooked.

It is not that I would rule out any kind of military intervention. There are times when action is necessary, and when a failure to act constitutes a dereliction of duty. But ISIL is not a dictatorial regime; it is not even HAMAS. What Clegg and others do not address is that ISIL is not simply a military operation. It is a political movement, with its roots in key elements of Iraqi society, that is far more interested in prompting Turkey into responses as it is in goading the West. It craves recognition and has been brazenly seeking the kind of retaliation that will lend substance to its propaganda. It is not, as Clegg is suggesting, a threat to the UK - the brutal killings of UK citizens are not aimed at threatening the UK, but provoking it.  It certainly makes so sense to me to commit to military intervention in Iraq on the basis of gruesome murders of British citizens in Syria.

The question of how is as crucial as the issue of why. Attention should also be given to the potential ramifications of any action, including how to build a less divided Iraq in the aftermath.

A "coalition" is no substitute for a United Nations Resolution. There are appropriate international bodies that cannot continue to be shown disdain. "Coalitions" of Arab countries with vested interests - and human rights records ISIL would be proud of - should not be sided with uncritically. I am not suggesting doing nothing, but action must be based on an understanding of political and military reality that seems somewhat lacking in Clegg's e-mail. Action must be considered, proportionate and planned with potential consequences in mind. 

As it stands, we are risking everything on removing ISIL while adopting a strategy that might actually strengthen their hand. Will intervention be to the benefit of the area's long-term future? Is the strategy realistic? How will it improve the West's standing in the area? How will it work to undo the damage of previous Western interventions?  None of these question shave been addressed.

I'm uneasy about intervention but not necessarily opposed. I remain to be convinced. E-mails such as this - providing little detail, demonstrating limited understanding of the many issues at the heart of ISIL's emergence and depending upon perceived threats to the UK for its argument - anger me because they seek to justify a position without giving any adequate answers to the multitude of questions people like myself have.

On the positive side, at least Clegg does invite responses. He's showing a willingness to engage with members, and that is appreciated. However, if you're going to make a case for military action, it has to be a bit more sophisticated than "they're bad" and "they represent a threat to the UK".