To quote Paul Nuttall, the Syria bombing conducted by the USA and Donald J. Trump was “rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing”. Undoubtedly, Nuttall is correct. Other than breaking a promise to his core voter base, breaking a constitutional law for foreign entanglements, Trump will be helping terrorism to grow by bringing the policy of dropping democracy on people’s heads.

I don’t need to repeat what has been said on the silly choice of bombing Assad will bring. It has already been stated, rather correctly, by Jack Russell on this site. Many other voices have stressed concern about the “chemical attacks”.

What we need to question is what the British government’s response should be to such bombings. For better or worse, much of our foreign policy has been made in an obedient dog-like fashion to align itself with the USA. After all we share a common language which strengthens cultural ties, it is bigger and we are smaller than we once were. It makes sense why we would blindly support such actions in principle.

It seems to be that way, as Prime Minister May has joined the ranks of Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron in supporting the USA in another crass foreign endeavor with absolutely no hesitance and not a contrary thought.

As for political parties, the Labour moderates and Liberal Democrats have also joined in the calls for our intervention in Syria. That leave us with UKIP and Jeremy Corbyn as opposition.

Corbyn is against intervention in any shape or form in an idealised manner of pacifism, in a way that is almost admirable (war is always bad after all). Nevertheless, wanting to live in a world where we have no bombs and no defense is a dangerous mindset to have. I understand his concerns for Trident but I still feel it a necessary device to have and its destruction would weaken our already weakened armed forces.

What UKIP needs to have is a foreign policy outlook that is truly independent so that the public and our brave soldiers are truly coming first in the policy decisions. That means that it isn’t vested in Saudi Arabian princes or US based Neo-Cons hammering the destruction for their own vested interests – those who led great people’s sons and daughters of both sides into wars that murdered and traumatized many, yet live in cosy comfort with not a thought of those consequences.

We need to respect the national independence and sovereignty of our fellow nations; this is what a newly independent nation that we are becoming should be doing. Respecting the culture and identity of other countries, understanding that the way it is governed, how it treats each other, how it sees itself can be alien, but not worthy of a “humanitarian intervention” to supposedly fix those problems. We only need to show force when it attacks our home.

The destabilisation of these Middle Eastern countries in a dangerous game of Risk was also the source that kick-started the supposed “refugee” crisis. The bombing of a family’s home would no doubt make the citizen of that nation move away into the comfort of Europe, or give the excuse for a man (in this case men) to leave his country for the comfort of welfare payments and easy work. To be against mass immigration, one must also be against its root causes. We must not invade the world, then invite the world to our homes, for our destruction.

The only argument that I sympathize with, like much of the public, is how we can deal with ISIS with a policy of non-interference. Terrorism is a hard task to tackle, and if we had a non-interventionist strategy during the Iraq war, we wouldn’t be in that mess. ISIS is propped up by many of the Saddam Hussein-era officers. The obvious solution seems to be bombing places with suspected insurgencies.

However, blunder bombing ISIS would not have stopped Khalid Masood, a second-generation immigrant, from running over and causing the deaths of five innocent people. ISIS may go about claiming in sick pride to have caused this, and yes, their influence is felt, but ISIS is as organized as a blind optician, they are structurally weak and will collapse under their own weight. It may take a while, but it will. What will be the replacement, we cannot be sure.

What we need to do is what successive governments in our country have failed to do: integration while deporting suspected terrorists. The government, since the British public not once supported failed integration and multiculturalism, is at fault for allowing these cracks to be opened. To blame another country, to intervene in its affairs, is a knee-jerk reaction to what is essentially the fault of bad government, domestically. After all, we have the Prime Minister who sold us out to Irish Terrorists with the Good Friday Agreement. Appeasement to terrorism at home is not the answer.

A Nation State’s duty is to address its own country’s problems and to provide solutions, not to take a moral high ground and to address another country’s problems! Once a foe invades Kent, or planes fly over Newcastle, we shall take that stand with our forces ready, but we don’t need a war with places most politicians couldn’t point to on a map. Thankfully, I believe UKIP is taking the traction for a patriotic non-interventionism. Let us hope they will stand their ground on this matter.