Let me begin this column by saying that I like any other right thinking person, would welcome the elimination of the threat posed by the Islamic State (IS) group.

Indeed I have always held the view that from an intelligence perspective the gloves need to come off and greater resources than ever be made available to counter the terrorism IS has now made a transnational threat. The Paris and Sharm el-Sheikh attacks have made that strategic shift in IS operations clear at least.

Let me continue however with the additional observation that widening and intensifying air strikes across Syria are not going to achieve that goal.

Before we even get to the issue of how effective the air campaign is in eroding IS capacity and its effects on Syria’s civilian population, there is the ever present threat of a major ‘mistake’ that could quickly hurl this conflict into a new and dangerous dimension.

Think of the shooting down this week of a Russian warplane by Turkey and the subsequent rise in tension between the two nations and you get an idea of what I mean.

Only yesterday in response to the incident, Moscow said it had broken off military contacts with Ankara and confirmed it would deploy its most advanced anti-aircraft missile system in Syria to destroy any target that may threaten its warplanes.

Doubtless IS commanders are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of major powers being at each other’s throats just as they cherish the prospect of goading the West into an all-out ground war in Syria to achieve the objective that military history has shown air strikes alone can never achieve.

Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday was at great pains to point out that air strikes against IS in Syria would be in the UK's "national interest".

But the jury remains out as to whether bombing targets in Syria would really make the UK safer rather than just a more obvious target for IS.

And all this before the pressing questions surrounding the air strikes themselves. Just how effective they have been in degrading IS inside Syria pretty much depends on who you ask.

Take the US campaign for example. According to US Central Command (Centcom), the week ending November 17 was the most intensive seven-day period of airstrikes since Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) began in August 2014.

Yes, that operation has been ongoing since the summer of last year, and yes in that time far from IS having been daunted we have not only seen them escalate their war from the battlefields of Syria to the streets of Europe and skies over Egypt.

Coalition officials point to the fact that its 8,300 airstrikes may have destroyed more than 16,000 IS targets and killed more than 20,000 of its fighters. During these it says at least one mid to upper level IS commander is being killed every two days.

On paper this might sound impressive but in effect it is really little more than a dent in IS capabilities and a long way off from destroying a militant army and terrorist group with considerable personnel at its disposal.

As many analysts point out, it is near impossible to “kill your way out” of the challenge this kind of fluid and shadowy adversary poses using air power alone.

This ‘effectiveness’ issue is not the only question air strikes raise. So called ‘collateral damage’ that sanitised term used to include civilian casualties is another contentious issue.

Last month the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which operates and supports medical facilities throughout Syria said that attacks had left 35 patients and doctors dead and another 72 wounded, even as the bombs from airstrikes were destroying access to life-saving equipment.

In all during that period last month airstrikes hit 12 medical facilities forcing hospitals to close and exacerbating the country’s already dire refugee crisis.

Few doubt that whatever country’s air force carries out the strikes civilians are caught in the crossfire.

As one headline on an article in the magazine Foreign Policy dryly pointed out recently, ‘The US air campaign is Syria is suspiciously impressive at not killing civilians,’ with the Pentagon claiming that only two cases of ‘collateral damage’ have been recorded.

Russian airstrikes in particular have been singled out in some quarters for being especially indiscriminate.

Only yesterday humanitarian workers on the ground claimed Russian airstrikes hit an aid convoy travelling near the Syrian border town of Azaz in Aleppo province killing seven and wounding another 10.

Though it was unclear exactly who carried out the strikes, the Turkish-based IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation which had a team on the ground said they were sure the strikes were from Russian aircraft.

While the Kremlin has dismissed accusations of indiscriminate bombardment as ‘bogus’, a newly released report by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) says that Russian warplanes have routinely targeted hospitals and clinics.

If there is one thing certain in all this, it is that airstrikes be they coalition, Russian or regime have only added to the misery for Syrian civilians.

“They need safety. They need security. They need to stop living from one moment to the next, wondering when the next bomb will fall,” was how humanitarian worker Sylvain Groulx, the head of MSF’s operation in Syria summed up their plight.

During a recent visit to the Turkey- Syrian border I was to hear similar comments from other aid agencies including Mercy Corps who have been conducting relief operations across the border into Syria for some time.

Should the UK government chose to go down the path of extending air strikes into Syria, they too clearly run the risk of further adding to the plight of the Syrian people.