ISLAMIC STATE

The beheading of David Haines, the British aid worker, is an act of brutal savagery. Mr Haines, a former aircraft engineer and RAF Sergeant, had endured 18-months of pain and anguish since his captors had seized him on the Syrian-Turkish border delivering aid to refugees. His courage in the face of this appalling act can barely be imagined. That Mr Haines had devoted himself to bring relief to the sufferings of others in the Middle East region only adds to the monstrous nature of his murder.

Quite rightly, the international attention in the wake of this latest atrocity has swung sharply to the response of the British government.

Here the Government faces a most searching dilemma. After the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a widespread conviction across the political spectrum and the country that Britain should never again be dragged into an armed conflict in the Middle East. That mood is rapidly changing.

The British government is now under growing pressure to respond, not only with aid and supplies to the Kurds in northern Iraq, but also to engage directly with air strikes against the Islamic militants.

The dilemma for David Cameron is one which is compounded by the timing of these latest developments. The prime minister has to articulate an appropriate response that reflects the national revulsion against the brutality of IS and the threat that the proliferation of murderous terrorism presents to the region, while at the same time desperately struggling to prevent the break-up of the United Kingdom. Scotland goes to the polls on the 18 September in its long awaited referendum for independence.

The stakes could hardly be higher. The collision of these two events inarguably presents the prime minister with his greatest challenge yet. So charged is the political atmosphere at home that some fear a decision to launch air strikes at this time would seriously impact on his chances of securing a No vote in the referendum.

Crucially, however, these are totally separate issues, and they must be dealt with separately, rather than allowing speculation of possible political consequences to cloud the issues at stake.

The choice before the British government is whether to continue with its current policy of providing arms, ammunition, technical equipment and training to the Kurds to enhance their fight against IS, or whether the UK should step up its response with direct military involvement.

A campaign of air strikes requires careful consideration, not least on logistical grounds, and will require time to organise and prepare. By default of the political situation in the UK any possible air strikes would have been ruled out in the next 72 hours. More difficult, still, would be a deployment in the tumultuous immediate aftermath of a referendum Yes vote.

What has become abundantly clear since the establishment of IS and its ostensible caliphate is that the fight against IS is going to be long and protracted. On this basis, the UK’s military response has to be credible rather than merely a gesture. That will require detailed consideration and follow-through. Instant response through anger is no solution.

We should not forget, either, that there is also much to be done to encourage and support a UN response. World opinion must be fully supportive of action as and when it occurs.