THE BLOG

Cameron Is Treading a Fine Line - Britain is Dangerously Close to the Bloodiest War of Our Lifetime

25/11/2015 12:10 GMT | Updated 25/11/2016 10:12 GMT

It is increasingly likely that parliament will vote in the coming weeks to give Cameron a mandate for intervention in Syria - if they choose to, MPs will be giving an extraordinary mandate to a man that fails to see the consequences of his actions. If the operation is to go ahead, it must be meticulously planned and detailed, and should only be presented when there is global agreement on the future of Syria. Cameron's current policy seems to be that a reckless aerial campaign of any sorts would alleviate the threat of terrorism posed to Britain - the reality is far beyond Cameron's capability. To suggest the government have the faintest conception of the hell they are about unleash would be a far too kind compliment. The Prime Minister must realise that war is not a game - unless his government changes tact, bloodshed is on the horizon.

The Prime Minister has made no serious attempt to engineer global cooperation to tackle the threat. Our reasons for intervention, and the settlement that we would like to see is very similar to that which Russia have in mind - we both hold our domestic security as a priority and the core reason for intervening. However, unless an agreement is made with Russia before the Western intervention escalates, forces will come to blows with Russia over the fact that we want democracy in the region - for now, we will have to succumb to the fact that stability has to be our focus. The talks in Vienna have ultimately failed to find an agreement because we have been too over-confident in our abilities. If we fail to reach an agreement with Russia before intervening, make no mistake that Britain and its partners could easily stumble in to conflict with Russia.

Cameron also refuses to concede the scale of the operation - there is increasing pressure that a bombing campaign would have to be followed by a ground invasion, and considering the lessons learnt from withdrawing prematurely from past campaigns, the operation could last at least a decade. The loss of life for Britons would be catastrophic - not least in terms troops, but also as a result of terrorism in Europe that would be spurred by such interference. The bombing of the Russian aircraft over Egypt was in retaliation for Putin's intervention in Syria - if we are to intervene ourselves, we must be braced for further terrorism plots at home. The impact on Syria, as well as the Middle East as a whole, should of course not be underestimated either.

We can no longer ignore the threat that ISIS poses - through a comprehensive and meticulously planned strategy they must be eliminated as succinctly as possible, be it militarily or otherwise. However, they must be eliminated with due consideration to the consequence of our actions. Unfortunately, Cameron's provocative rhetoric suggests that caution is far in the back of his mind. If parliament votes to back British intervention, Cameron would have a mandate to pave through Syria like a petulant, spoilt child, triggering future conflicts and wars with Russia and beyond. Britain is dangerously close to the bloodiest war of our lifetime and Cameron is far from the best to tread carefully.