Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Cameron is trashing his own party, and it’s not a pretty sight (Daily Telegraph)

Gay marriage is an admirable cause, but if Conservative membership keeps falling at this rate, we will soon enter a new political era, says Peter Oborne.

2. Stafford Hospital, NHS managers, and why money rather than reform sometimes really is the answer (Independent)

A confused, simplistic and narrow debate about the true meaning of NHS reform has been exposed by the appalling neglect of patients in this exceptional case, writes Steve Richards.

3. The five questions Carney must answer (Financial Times)

The next BoE governor must live up to his rock star billing, says Chris Giles.

4. 'No more Mid Staffs' sounds so simple. It will be anything but (Guardian)

The parties were unified but we know that reform in the NHS, though massively necessary, has defeated many politicians, writes Martin Kettle.

5. It isn't those who oppose gay marriage who are the bigots - it is the liberals who demonise them (Daily Mail)

It marks a watershed in modern Britain when the leader of the party to which instinctively conservative people might be expected to look champions social revolution, says Stephen Glover.

6. Why the Tories need a meritocrat's manifesto (Guardian)

Fairness has traditionally been seen as a Labour preserve. But we can find a better way to reach the aspirational underdog, says Dominic Raab.

7. Confused of Westminster seeks a big idea (Times) (£)

Fractious Tories fight their leader and each other, while docile Labour is devoid of a plan, writes David Aaronovitch. The old politics is dying.

8. Turkey and the Kurds: progress on the horizon (Guardian)

If a Kurdish spring happens, the rewards for both sides are significant – not just the end of a conflict that has claimed 40,000 lives, says a Guardian editorial. 

9. Leveson and the Lords (Daily Telegraph)

The Defamation Bill is being used as a backdoor means of introducing state regulation of the press, says a Telegraph leader.

10. Rating agencies must beware of the law (Financial Times)

Free speech is no defence if standards are lowered to please issuers and gain revenues, writes John Gapper.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Bomb Isil? That's exactly what they want

The government appears not to answer the nature of its enemy, warns Maria Norris.

As MPs are set to vote on further airstrikes in Syria, it is difficult to shake off the feeling that the government does not fully appreciate the complexity of the problem Isil poses. Just a cursory glance at its magazine, the pronouncements of its leaders and its ideology reveals that Isil is desperate for Western bombs to fall out of the sky. As Martin Chulov argues, Isil is fighting a war it believes was preordained since the early days of Islam. Isil’s obsession with the city of Dabiq, in Northern Syria, stems from a hadith which prophesises that the ‘Crusader’ army will land in the city as a precursor to a final battle where Islam will emerge victorious. Dabiq is also the name of its magazine, which starts every issue with the same quote: "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify -- by Allah's permission -- until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq". Isil wants a war with the West. If we don’t negotiate with terrorists, then we also should not give them what they want.

Further, bombs are indiscriminate and will inevitably lead to the suffering of those trapped in Isil territories. Isil is counting on this suffering to swell their ranks. Civilian suffering from airstrikes only underline the narrative that the West is at war with Islam, which plays directly into Isil’s hands. And despite misleading headlines and the genuine government concern with individuals fleeing to Syria, Isis is supremely unpopular. It is no wonder that its magazine is filled with glossy adds begging people to move to its territories.  You cannot be a state without people. Terrorist attacks such as Paris thus have a two-pronged purpose: they provoke the West to respond with its military, and they act as a recruitment drive. The fact that fake Syrian passports were found around the sites of the Paris attacks is no coincidence as Isil are both seeking to stem the flow of refugees from its territories and hoping to provoke an Islamophobic backlash. They hope that, as more Muslims feel alienated in the West, more will join them, not just as fighters, but as the doctors, nurses and teachers it desperately needs.

In addition to this, airstrikes overlook the fact that Isil is a result of what Fawaz Gerges calls a severe, organic institutional crisis in the Middle East. In a lecture at the London School of Economics earlier this year, Gerges pointed out the dysfunction created when a region that is incredibly resource rich also is also deeply undemocratic, riddled with corruption, food insecurity, unemployment and poverty. This forms an institutional vacuum that is filled by non-state actors as the population does not trust its political structures. Further, the civil war in Syria is also the site of the toxic soup of Middle Eastern state dysfunction. Iran supports Assad, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, fund anti-Shia groups in Syria. Throw in the Kurdish conflict, Turkey’s ambiguous position and Russian bombs, it is difficult to see how airstrikes will solve anything.

Finally, it is crucial that Isil is seen as a direct result of the Iraq war. The American-led invasion destroyed the institutions, giving the Shia majority power almost overnight, creating deep dissatisfaction in the Sunni regions of Iraq. On top of this thousands of foreign fighters flooded Iraq to fight the invaders, attracting disenfranchised and angry Sunnis. The result is that since 2003, Iraq has been embroiled in a sectarian civil war.  It is in civil war, inherently connected to the Iraq War, that you find the roots of Isil. As even the Prime Minister concedes that ground troops are necessary, albeit it regional ground troops with its own set of problems, it is important to consider what further monster can arise from the ashes of another ill-thought out military intervention in the Middle East.
We have had decades of military intervention in the Middle East with disastrous consequences. Airstrikes represent business as usual, when what we actually need is a radically new approach. Who is funding Isil? Who is buying its oil? How to curb Isil’s recruitment drives? What can be done about the refugees? How to end the conflict in Syria? What happens to Assad? These are questions hopefully being addressed in talks recently held in Vienna with Russian, Ira, the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states. Airstrikes do not answer any of these questions. What airstrikes do is give Isil exactly what it is asking for. Surely this is reason enough not to bomb Syria. 

Maria W. Norris is a PhD candidate and a teacher at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her PhD is on the UK counter-terrorism strategy since 9/11 and its relationship with identity. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.