In his summary of recent military history, to substantiate his argument that "dropping bombs is politically cosmetic", Simon Jenkins surprisingly faile to mention Hitler`s attempts to "blitz" Britain into submission (The dangerous delusion of drone bombs,18/09/15). The Luftwaffe failed, and all the subsequent attempts to bomb the enemy "into the stone age" in Vietnam and the Middle East have met a similar fate. Indiscriminate bombing does not decrease resistance, nor the determination of the victims to carry on. The fact that the enemy is prepared to drop a weapon, from hundreds of feet in the air, which has the potential, not only to blow to pieces women and children, but to miss any intended "targets" and hit hospitals and schools, only ever increases hatred, and the desire for revenge. Jenkins is right to be sceptical about the accuracy of British bombs which have "killed 330 Isis fighters" but "no civilians". What does Fallon take us for?
Another argument against bombing of any kind, but also against the "boots on the ground" idea, which Jenkins favours, is that the usual justification given for violent jihadism is the foreign policy of the west, with its repeated invasions, interference and killing. Paddy Asdown recently asked how can we expect to destroy Isis "by killing more Muslim Arabs with Western bombs", but the same can be asked about western intervention of any kind.(Cameron`s refugee plan is pathetic - as is his military one,08/09/15). Whatever happened to diplomacy? Is Syria really, as Jenkins says, "none of Britain`s business", when such a mess was made of the area in the post-war settlement of 1919?
The solution has to be found diplomatically, not militarily. Does anyone really think that killing every jihadist will solve the problem of Isis or Al-Qaeda?