Two years ago, Prime Minister David Cameron asked parliament to support the bombing of Syrian government forces. He lost that vote. But this Wednesday, MPs at Westminster voted 397 to 223 to extend British airstrikes from Iraq into Syrian territory held by the Islamic State (IS). In order to justify this, a contorted set of arguments is used to support the so-called Free Syrian Army. They are fighting Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and the IS. However, this army is composed of over 50 squabbling sectarian forces – operating under Syria's flag – in order to secure access to weapons, finance and support from Western powers and Middle Eastern states.

When the dogs of war bellowed in Westminster, the long-term memory of the British political establishment seemed to rapidly vaporise. Each war is discussed on its own merits as if it were an isolated event.

As he speaks for airstrikes, Cameron purses his lips to reinforce a tough demeanour. He trumps all disagreements by playing on the threat of imminent terrorist attacks. Indeed, he exploited the recent massacres in Paris to whip-up a campaign against the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Before the parliamentary vote on airstrikes, Cameron slandered all MPs opposed to the bombing by labelling them "terrorist sympathisers." His remarks were clearly aimed at Corbyn.

Mainstream journalists have put constant pressure on Corbyn and other opponents of airstrikes, accusing them of being unpatriotic. Not "doing something" is presented as anti-British pacifism and Corbyn has been consistently accused of this. The "something we must do" inevitably entails aerial bombardment and the killing of collateral innocents. British bombings are also designed to demonstrate that we are still willing to punch above our weight in global military affairs. Indeed, Cameron's enthusiasm stems from his feeling that Britain's image – as the staunchest ally of the U.S. – was downgraded when parliament rejected bombing Syria in 2013. To the uninitiated, it might appear as if bombing Syria is the objective and the opponents are negotiable.

The left-wing Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed the bombing of Syria and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has first-hand knowledge of the history of world imperialism. A year ago, Corbyn would have been speaking at demonstrations against the war. But rather than draw on this armoury and his moral inspiration and courage, Corbyn used a forensic approach to counter the details of Cameron's pro-war motion to parliament.

In the run up to the vote, Corbyn came under intense pressure from the majority of members of his shadow cabinet – who support airstrikes. Although he could have ordered Labour MPs to vote against airstrikes, he offered his MPs a "free vote" instead, to avoid an open split in his own party. However, the shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn made a strong speech in favour of bombing, opposing Corbyn in the parliamentary debate. This speech was probably also his declaration as a future candidate for Labour leader.

Despite the fact that Corbyn was elected party leader with a thumping 59 percent majority in September, the overwhelming majority of Labour's 232 members of parliament are at odds with his views. Some want to remove him quickly. As a consequence, there is a now open civil war in the Labour Party. Last week, Corbyn asked party members and supporters to express their views to their MPs, which over 70,000 did. Seventy-five percent of them opposed airstrikes. Such pressure from the party's grassroots is essential to propel the party in a socialist direction.

David Cameron says that the "present danger" from the IS requires immediate action, and past mistakes mustn't prevent us from "doing the right thing" now. He fancies that 70,000 "moderate" Syrian forces could take back IS occupied cities if bombing degrades the IS leadership's command structure. Britain's precision bombing capability is allegedly essential to destroy the command center of the Islamic State in the city of Raqqa, Syria. However, such bombs can only have a marginal impact on IS forces, who, whenever bombs drop, hide in underground bunkers and inside civilian installations.

Many of the "moderates" that Cameron's war strategy depends on, differ little in their ideology and actions from our enemies in the IS and Al Qaeda. Now, the U.S. and Britain want to supply these "moderates" with more weapons: a policy that pours petrol on the fire that we helped create. The fact remains that the only ground forces in Syria capable of defeating the IS, if backed by foreign airpower, are those of President Assad. Indeed, if the British and U.S. are such masters of war, where is the 200,000 strong Iraqi army that U.S. and British military services along with civilian "experts" spent 8 years training?

The appeal of the Islamic State rests in its claim to have established a caliphate based on a pure interpretation of Islam. It appears to represent the combination of religious motivation with the fighting appeal of an anti-imperialist guerrilla struggle. On the ground, the IS combines fear and deal-making with black market traders, small businesses and fellow gangsters. However, it is the recruitment of Jihadi's from around the world that lies at the center of their terrorist capabilities.

Western intervention acts to reinforce IS recruitment in countries like France, Belgium and Britain. Local cells can attack soft civilian targets with relative ease. Vigorous airstrikes will not degrade this home-grown threat. The IS will continue to recruit young, disaffected and alienated youth, particularly in poverty stricken areas like Molenbeek in Brussels. Without a crusade against poverty, racism and social exclusion in Europe, Britain and the United States, we will continue to produce new individuals prepared to carry out dramatic attacks on our cities, and IS forces are only one type of such terrorism. Let us not forget, it is the disparities of social conditions that are the breeding ground for unrest all over the world.

Heiko Khoo is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://china.org.cn/opinion/heikokhoo.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.