Islam Online Articles Politics

The Theology of Bombing ISIS in Syria

I write a regular column for Christian Today – which is a British based Christian news website, with a large number of American followers.  Today when the British parliament is about to vote on yet another war/bombing campaign I find it interesting and depressing that the following are the top (ie. most popular) items on the website

  1. Why Brad Pitt’s an atheist and why the Church should pay attention
  2. Polygamous pastor expecting first child with teen wife
  3. ISIS sell Yazidi women for ‘a packet of cigarettes’
  4. Infant who ‘died’ in Miami car accident brought back to life — twice: ‘Higher power involved here’
  5. Tim Tebow dumped by Olivia Culpo allegedly because of his vow of celibacy
  6. Pope Francis prays with Imam in CAR, says Christians and Muslims are brothers and sisters
  7. Russia calls for Hagia Sophia to be returned to Orthodox Church

I think this tells us a great deal about modern celebrity, media based Christianity in the West.  We are far more reflective of the culture than we think we are.  Anyway here is the text of the article which you can read in the original here Christian Today – Bombing Syria

The Theology of Bombing ISIS in Syria

Prime Minister David Cameron will ask the Commons tomorrow to back military action on Syria.

The British media seem to be more interested in what the effect of bombing ISIS in Syria will have on Jeremy Corbyn’s career, than on what impact it will actually have on the whole messed up situation in the Middle East. Indeed there is a concern that our politicians seem more interested in gestures and perceptions, rather than the complexities and realities of what is going on. The Christian Church, sometimes as a tool of the State, has far too often gone along with whatever the prevailing zeitgeist seems to be. Some think that we should have nothing to say on this issue and should just stick to theology. But is there a theology of bombing?

Let’s look at this from the perspective of what is called Just War Theory. Developed largely by Augustine and then later Aquinas, it lays out the basic principles that should inform a nation’s decision to go to war.

The important thing about Just War Theory is that it is intended to prevent wars, rather than encourage them. War is always to be a last resort. It is always an evil and can only be waged if the alternative would be a greater evil. Just War Theory is based on two basic areas both summarised in Latin phrases. Jus ad bellum is about the conditions where military force is justified. Jus in bello is about the most ethical way to conduct a war.

Although the working out of this is complex, the conditions for a just war are simply laid out:

  1. It must be fought by a legally-recognised authority. Government, not private individuals or corporations.
  2. The cause of the war must be just.
  3. There must be an intention to establish good or restrain evil.
  4. There must be a reasonable chance of success.
  5. The war must be a last resort.
  6. Only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved.

Now, let’s look at what the British government is proposing. Two years ago there was a proposal to bomb the Syrian Assad government that was rejected by the House of Commons. Now we are proposing to bomb one group that is fighting the Assad government – ISIS. Why the change? Because after the Paris atrocities it is recognised that there is a danger to the United Kingdom from Islamist terrorists who come from ISIS. Therefore we need to bomb Raqqa, a city the size of Aberdeen, in order to defend Britain. To my mind it is clear that the first three reasons for engaging in a just war are fulfilled by this. But what about the last three?

A Reasonable Chance of Success – If success means destroying the ‘State’ of Islamic State, then the chances of success are very high. The trouble is that, as we keep being reminded by our own government, there is no such thing as Islamic State. It is Daesh, a terrorist group. The question then becomes, will bombing Raqqa or other areas of Syria prevent, restrain or remove the causes of terrorism? And the answer almost certainly is no. American, Jordanian, Russian, French and Syrian jets have already dropped tens of thousands of bombs. Has that decreased the threat of terrorism? Do our previous campaigns in the Middle East not have anything to tell us? If Islamism is an ideology which sees the West as an oppressive anti-Islamic force, will dropping bombs decrease or increase that perception? How does bombing a small Syrian city protect London, Birmingham and Glasgow from terrorist violence? If we are, in the words of David Cameron, to “hit them in their heartlands right now”, should we not be bombing Brussels, rather than Raqqa? It is a ridiculous ‘logic’, but terrorists are far more likely to come from Molenbeek (the area of Brussels where the Paris attacks were planned) than Raqqa. Brussels has a 25 per cent Muslim population, 98 per cent of whom are Sunni Muslims, the very group who make up the basis of ISIS.

The War must be a Last Resort  – The impression given by the British government is that this is a first response, rather than a last resort. Furthermore it seems to be more about preserving Britain’s place in the world pecking order and showing our ‘solidarity’ with the French, than it is about protecting our own nation. Britain dropping a few more bombs on Syria is not really about defeating ISIS. It is about Britain’s reputation. As the Prime Minister egotistically observed “the world is looking at us”. A war is not ‘just’ because it is waged in order to show that a nation still has it, or as a personal ego trip for political leaders.

Only Sufficient Force must be used and civilians must not be involved  – This doctrine has been changed to ‘only sufficient force must be used and British troops must not be involved’. The trouble is that while we can boast about ‘minimal civilian casualties’ from direct hits, we cannot say that about the damage done to the communities involved in the war. Dropping bombs and using drones certainly minimises the casualties to British troops, but whether it reduces the number of civilian causalities on the ground, or stops the flow of refugees, is another question. The result of our failed intervention in Iraq has been a million dead and the establishment of ISIS. The result of our bombing in Libya has been a failed state and a flood of refugees across the Mediterranean. Why would we expect the results to be any different this time?

The Catholic Catechism of 1992 in discussing just war theory states: “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”. Given that there are only 2,000 of the 20,000 ISIS fighters left in Raqqa and that they just merge amongst the civilian population, it is extremely unlikely that they can be killed without civilians being harmed. Rather than preventing terrorism, bombing is likely to increase it. Every dead child’s picture, tweeted all over the Sunni world, is going to be a far more effective recruiting sergeant for ISIS, than any radical Mullah could be. David Cameron declared in the House of Commons that “the presence of Western boots on the ground would be counter-productive”. Perhaps the House of Commons should recognise that the presence of Western bombs would also be counter-productive?

One side aspect of this sideshow is the way that Britain’s political class has reacted. Politicians love to be seen doing ‘something’ and there is an element of excitement in thinking that we are going to war. Christians, even if we are not pacifists, need to reject that temptation. Jeremy Corbyn has been widely mocked as weak and non-statesmanlike for sticking to his principles and for stating what many British citizens think. However instead of the narrative being that he is the lunatic left-winger who just does not understand, perhaps it is the case that, in this instance, he has a far better understanding of just war theory and how it works than the other so-called ‘statesmen’?

I recently read this quote about America from Os Guinness which is apposite to the UK in this situation. As we head towards a Christmas celebrating the coming of the Prince of Peace, with our government holding yet another debate on going to war, we would do well to reflect upon this:

“It will not do to equate America and freedom and then to assume that any and all American policies are automatically justified in the name of freedom. It will not do for Americans to rehearse their good intentions, for in the age of side effects, unintended consequences, and unknown aftermaths, the best intentions may produce the worst of results and pave the road to another man-made hell” – Os Guinness, A Free People’s Suicide.

David Robertson is the moderator of the Free Church of Scotland and director of Solas CPC, Dundee. 


Since writing this I heard a Tory MP on the BBC last night saying that ISIS are ‘evil’, not human and we should ‘wipe them from the face of the earth’.   The arrogance, hubris and inhumanity of this remark stunned me. Only God knows the evil in human hearts and only God has the right to wipe humanity from the face of the earth (ironically something which sinners condemn him for doing!).  We have no right to act as judge and jury.   We are all sinners.  Not just ISIS.  We are all human.


  1. Thank you for these timely and wise words. I agree with you, but I do think we should have attempted to rescue the Yazidis and Christians being slaughtered two years ago.

  2. Great post David.

    I served for 10 years in the Air Force and the discipline of using a minimum amount of force to achieve an objective was paramount to any engagement. Unfortunately not unlike Jesus with teachers of the Law there can be situations where it’s a case of do what they say and not what they do.

    What is the objective – I doubt if politicians have that clear and minimum force? Well part of the propaganda being sold in the first Gulf war was precision bombing taking out targets with the minimum of collateral damage. The final straw for me with serving was seeing equipment I had worked on with this kind of bomb malfunctioning going off target and exploding in a residential area.

    One of the things about “Just War” is that any war must not be a war over natural resources. Let’s face the reality – the west want control over the rich natural resources in the middle east. In order to have that, they need a puppet dictator to control. When such a dictator detaches himself from the strings of the west or another group takes control, the west does not have power over the area.

    Politicians create fear then to try to justify war and control both other countries and their own population. It is sheer insanity to bomb when bombing has caused political instability and given rise to ISIS.

    I hope Cameron doesn’t get what he wants and the country has woken up to a better way for peace.

  3. The postscript reminds me of a Sam Keen documentary from the 1980s, “Faces of the Enemy” (also a book) – the IMDb plot summary indicates why; there is a short clip on Youtube. Aspects of Keen’s “peace proposals” have been scrutinized and found wanting, but his analysis of the rhetoric of dehumanizing the enemy is compelling.

  4. Aye, Rev Robertson , You write it just as I read it ! Bombing anyone is not the answer . The bomb in any of its shapes or forms are weapons of terror and do not discriminate whom they kill or maim. I have no doubt that there are a list of apologists waiting with their justifiable answers when the first one goes astray,falling on the innocent . You will read ,hear and watch on your television lunchtime news of missiles with such accurate precision that they can enter through a prescribed keyhole. Sadly , they fail to recognize or discriminate who are innocent and who are the enemy within. The loss of one innocent in Syria is not worth such risk .
    In today’s cozy Western world , with a media struggling for something to compete with , the sofa sanitary “soldiers” whose hands are never bloodied nor minds never touched , as they fire their computer generated weapons and marvel , ” Oh how wonderful and lifelike those new graphics are .”
    Meanwhile on the ground, little children are considered “lucky” if they only lose one leg , and out of the hundreds of those whose flesh has melted from their bones, we can consider ourselves benefactors and humanitarians by inviting one over for treatment to salve our consciences.
    Butt out ! If Russia , France , the USA and all the other computer war driven nerds want to test their latest toys ( in case of a real war) and have not the guts to go in and face the enemy man to man then there is no moral credibility in this war……only target practice ! .

  5. The great thing about theology is that it doesn’t involve action or making hard decisions. Politicians have to do that to protect the people of this country and others.

    So, maybe the article should be extended to explain a new policy that would deal with ISIS without using force. Would prayer get god to remove them perhaps? Come on, let’s see something that we can do and not so much on what we can’t.

    1. The great thing about ignorance is that it doesn’t understand theology! Which does involve action and making hard decisions. It is facile to say that those who oppose a handful of British jets joining the crowded skies over Syria are not thinking about protecting the country. It would also help if you read the article – because it doesn’t say we shouldn’t use force. And bombing people just to be seen to do ‘something’ is an appalling argument….could we have an intelligent assessment of why bombing Raqqa will stop Islamic terrorism in Britain?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: