John Watson: Was attack's role to demoralise?

UNITED: French soldiers patrol in the Paris subway. Cold rain extinguished the flickering candles and drenched the packets of flowers outside the Paris attacks sites, but people came anyway - to pay tribute, to mourn, to reflect on their city's losses.PHOTO/AP

THE thinking behind the outrage in Paris is hard to understand.

This was no assault on the bastions of the capitalist and military establishment; it was an attack on innocent people enjoying a pleasant evening out. What purpose did the perpetrators expect it all to serve? One possibility is that they hoped to undermine public support for France's role in the Middle East. Perhaps they could demoralise people by making them afraid to carry on their normal activities; perhaps they could shut them up in their homes and destroy the quality of their lives.

Those who bombed the Russian airliner flying out of Sharm el-Sheikh have caused massive economic hardship in Egypt. Would terrorism in Paris ruin the economy there, too?

The likely answer to that is "no". Britain had experience of terrorist attacks in the days of the IRA campaign.

Bombs in London were fairly frequent and everyone gave a wide berth to a suspicious package. The public were not cowed, however - if anything, it hardened their resolve and, with tougher security measures in place, people took pride in carrying on their lives as before. I do not suppose that the French are so very different.

What about a deeper analysis that these outrages are intended to stoke the fires of racial intolerance, sparking a conflict between Christian and Muslim which the Muslims will, in some sense or other, win?

Well, that may be what was intended but the line from outrage to outcome is surely too long and tenuous to make it a sensible strategy. It seems unlikely that the Isis cause will really be furthered by these attacks. What is likely to happen is something rather different. Mr Hollande has referred to the attacks as an "act of war" and that, in political terms, is their real significance.

Forget whether this is the work of an isolated cell or whether it was planned from Iraq or Syria. Isis has claimed responsibility for an attack on France and that simplifies a lot of things for France and its allies.

Much of the British domestic support for those operations flowed from the nature of the regimes that were being ousted. But should we have been there at all? Haven't our recent interventions in other countries' affairs done more harm than good? Shouldn't we think twice before doing the same again?

The case against interfering in other countries' internal affairs because we do not like their regime has been well made. It also fits in neatly with the government's strategy of opening trade links with countries with poor human rights records. What businesses is it of ours? Let's keep our soldiers safe and take our profits - that's what trading nations do.

Now, though, it is different. This is no longer a question of interfering in other countries' affairs but one of eliminating an organisation at war with us and with our allies, and politicians need no longer agonise as to whether this goes beyond their remit in trying to improve the world. That question has disappeared into the shadow of a greater duty - the duty of her Majesty's government to protect the British people and those who are allied to us.

In practical terms that means a number of things. The draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which will reinforce surveillance powers, needs to be enacted, and Prime Minister David Cameron needs to get Parliament to extend his remit to authorise attacks over Syria. We should also be joining the Americans in sending special forces to help train and advise Syrian rebels fighting against Isis.

There are domestic measures, too. We need to redouble efforts to ensure young Muslims are not excluded from society or ghettoised, with housing policies designed to ensure that immigrants live among their indigenous neighbours.

There will be those who think this is all rather unnecessary. If Britain takes a back seat in the coalition, perhaps we shall be spared the worst effects of the conflict. Why take a stance that can only make us targets? That might be a possible course if we believed Muslim fundamentalism would confine itself to the Middle East, that we could just sacrifice our friends, walk away and continue as before - rather as we once did with the Sudetenland. But that doesn't seem likely. A movement like the Islamic state will only become more voracious if it is not opposed. Perhaps the point is best expressed in a verse which early 20th century writer Saki attributes to his character, the Rev Wilfrid Gaspilton:

"You are not on the Road to Hell,

You tell me with fanatic glee:

Vain boaster, what shall that avail

If Hell is on the road to thee?"

There really isn't much of a choice.

John Watson is the editor of the UK weekly online magazine The Shaw Sheet - www.shaw sheet.com - where he writes as 'Chin Chin'