Will bombing of Isis in Syria really lead us to peace?
The Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, has hinted at a wish to bomb Islamic militants in Syria. But will the latest chapter in the long history of RAF bombing of this group achieve anything positive?
We are approaching a centenary of bombing bad Islamic people, which started during the First World War, when the native population of Waziristan (Pakistan) were on the receiving end.
This tactic proved so successful for us that it was continued in the 1920s and 1930s in Somaliland, then Mesopotamia (now Iraq).
With only a break for the Second World War, when we bombed Christian Germans, through the 1960s and into the 1970s, we were bombing mainly Muslims in the Suez Canal Zone, then in Aden, which brought us to the recent bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Does anyone other than arms manufacturers really believe that a century of bombing has brought us any nearer to peace with those whose lands we have harried?
Or is it not more likely that our past and present actions, with their inevitable collateral damage (that anodyne euphemism for killing and maiming innocent civilians), will only lead to retaliation in equally barbarous ways?