AS the likelihood of British airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria increases by the day, it is vital that any such action approved by Parliament is conditional on meeting four requirements.

In the first instance, legality through the explicit authority of the UN Security Council. A recent UN Security Council resolution that member states take "all necessary measures" to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to eradicate the safe haven established by IS in significant parts of Iraq and Syria. Whether this provides legitimacy for airstrikes is open to question and there have been calls for a UN Chapter VII resolution, explicitly legitimising military action.

Secondly, there must be explicit attainable military and political objectives with a high chance of success, to ensure that our military action doesn’t do more harm than good.

Thirdly, specific measures to minimise civilian casualties, and finally a plausible exit strategy – we must know when and how to stop.

Unless all four conditions are satisfied Parliament should reject the Government’s proposed military action.

The conditions which are proposed are extremely challenging – as they should be before the civil authority lets loose war, death and destruction in yet another Middle Eastern country. Every one of the four conditions is essential if another disaster is to be avoided.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

SINCERITY isn’t a word readily associated with the Syrian issue at present and the apparent “agonising” by David Cameron and colleagues as to how Britain can best contribute to the business of quelling Islamic State has a hollow ring to it. Since Russia began its air support campaign at the request of the Syrian government there has been every sign of a right old fankle in Nato and affiliated states.

Before Russian intervention, whatever the so-called Coalition air forces were doing in Syria was drumming up no headlines and as far as the news media was concerned no diminution of Islamic State (IS) was apparent. But with Russia on the scene everything was suddenly strident. From reports about Russian planes bombing civilians and “legitimate” opposition fighters to US State Department assertions that Vladimir Putin was worsening the Middle East situation, headlines have resumed. Nor is it necessary to mention the terrorist attacks against the Russian civilian passenger jet and the murders in Paris.

So what precisely is the purpose of Britain joining in what seems to be an already more than adequate amount of aeroplanes bombing IS strongholds in Syria? The downing of a Russian jet by the Turkish air force (“Putin warns Turks of consequences for downing of jet”, The Herald, November 25) should be warning enough that adding to the aerial bombardment presence over Syria has every probability of damaging the campaign against IS instead of supporting it.

This is not to mention the increasingly confusing matter of who is really fighting whom and whether something like the chaos of Libya is a likelier outcome of such muddled meddling than not.

Ian Johnstone,

84 Forman Drive, Peterhead.

WAR is the great clarifier, and in the case of the battle against Islamist insurgents, including Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda in Syria, the downing of the Russian war plane by the Turkish military has demonstrated this principle quite dramatically.

This incident has revealed what the real sides are in the Syrian civil war: who is fighting whom, and for what.

It is unthinkable that Turkey would have taken a decision against a powerful neighbour, fraught with incalculable consequences, without direct prior approval from the US Government.

President Obama has bluntly warned Russia not to attack Islamist opposition militias in western Syria that are supported by Nato.

Washington has effectively entered an alliance with al-Qaeda. The war on terrorism has turned into a war on Russia, a proxy war in Syria in which Washington is actively aiding its former enemies – the very same people who brought down the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Turkey is a member of Nato, and in any conflict with Russia we are pledged to come to its aid. The danger highlighted by this incident can hardly be overemphasised.

Washington and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar – who have been directly aiding IS as well as the “moderate” head-choppers – are indirectly responsible for the downing of the Russian plane.

It is becoming ever clearer that IS itself emerged and was presented in the international media primarily in line with the shifting needs of the imperialist powers as a pretext for their wars.

Though its operations were little different than the bombings and atrocities carried out by other Islamist militias in Syria, IS was selected for attack in the media, while other similar Islamist groups continued to enjoy tacit and even explicit US support.

If the current reckless path continues, a world war is not only possible, it is inevitable.

Alan Hinnrich,

2 Gillespie Terrace, Dundee.