When British warplanes this week carried out air strikes on Daesh (the self-proclaimed IS) targets in Syria for the first time, and Germany's parliament followed with a vote to send military support to the coalition, both countries took their respective action after a French request for help in the wake of last month's Paris attacks. Britain and Germany also decided to enter the coalition after intelligence indicated that Daesh was aiming to attack them. Thus, the two European nations were invoking the George W Bush doctrine: Attack them before they attack you. While Western intervention is welcomed, in reality, a serious anti-Daesh escalation cannot be put together until a broader de-escalation of the Syrian civil war is achieved, more is done to train local fighters, and a national political process is set in motion. Progress in the latter has barely begun. Until a few weeks ago, the key players in the conflict had never sat around the same negotiating table. While British Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledges this complexity, his argument is that something needs to be done now and that British inaction also has consequences. So, as part of his case, Cameron said that as many as 70,000 fighters in Syria who do not belong to extremist groups are still committed to fighting President Bashar Al-Assad. The figure has raised eyebrows. Many politicians and commentators have outright dismissed the number as highly exaggerated. And even if there were such a number, Syria is so complex that it is very hard to figure out who these fighters are, where they are fighting, and what sort of relationships this supposedly moderate force has with Daesh and Al-Qaeda. In Germany, there are many voices which caution against entering a conflict without clearly defined goals. But Germany is not in Britain's shoes. This will be Germany's biggest current military operation abroad, with Tornado reconnaissance jets and a naval frigate as 1,200 soldiers will be sent to the region. But Germany's post-World War II constitution hinders it in participating in battles on foreign soil. So, it cannot commit to airstrikes. What it will do is boost to 150 its 100-strong contingent of troops in northern Iraq and help train Kurdish Peshmerga forces who are fighting Daesh, providing arms and ammunition to them. Germany can also enhance its military support role by deploying high-tech intelligence jets over Syria and northern Iraq to help other countries' forces pinpoint targets. Engagement in Syria would not change the threat equation in the UK or Germany. Britain is already under the highest level of possible threat from Daesh. Intelligence chiefs believe that Britain is in fact in the top tier of potential Daesh targets. Daesh has spectacularly demonstrated its ability to carry out or inspire attacks against tourists in Tunisia, against a Russian airliner over Egypt, and against a variety of targets on the streets of Paris and now California. Just as British intelligence warned that striking Iraq in 2003 would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, so too, air strikes in Syria are likely to escalate the threat. However, that should not act as a deterrence to any coalition member or any country fighting terrorism. Countries battling this scourge must never bow to groups like Daesh and Al-Qaeda, for to do so would mean terrorism has won the day. There is a crucial need for military action, but that has its limits. The anti-Daesh coalition also has an important part to play within a wider comprehensive approach that includes diplomacy, humanitarian aid and, in the longer term, efforts to help the governments of Syria and Iraq to build up good governance.
