So here we go again: we're counting the RAF Tornado GR4 warplanes as they take off from Cyprus to attack Islamic fighters in Iraq; and then we're counting them safely back to base. Only this time, our main interest is focused not so much on the number of warplanes flying back from their combat missions, but whether any of them have actually managed to drop their bombs on the enemy. Even at this early stage of Gulf War Three, as the military operation against Islamic State has somewhat ambitiously been labelled, it is pretty clear that it bears no relation to the two conflicts that preceded it. Back in 1991 and 2003, RAF pilots were in very real danger of being shot down by Iraqi air defences. By comparison, Islamic State fighters, so far as we know, have no meaningful air defences, which means that RAF bombers can operate with relative impunity.
Yet while the RAF and coalition warplanes operating over Iraq now enjoy the advantage of flying missions in uncontested air space, it seems they are finding it rather difficult to find suitable targets to attack. At least that is the conclusion we must draw from the combat sorties flown by the Tornados thus far; to judge by the full bomb payloads, which are clearly visible as they return to their base at Akrotiri, they are struggling to make serious inroads against the enemy.
Relying on air power alone to confront a resourceful and well-organised outfit such as Islamic State, as I have previously argued, was always going to be a tough call. This reliance, combined with the inability of our political classes to come up with a coherent strategy for dealing with this menace, means that we are now reduced to trying to engage with the enemy from a distance of around 15,000ft.
As numerous retired military chiefs, including Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, have warned since the military action was authorised last week, the Islamist threat can only seriously be challenged by combat forces on the ground. Moreover, these need to be forces capable of prevailing against the determined Islamist fighters which, to judge by the unconvincing performance of the Iraqis to date, are unlikely to be either the Iranian-backed Shia militias or the Kurds' Peshmerga fighters. But no politician of rank in either London or Washington is even contemplating committing ground forces to deal with the Isil threat.
As a result, the military action that has been authorised now looks more like a token gesture than any serious desire to see this menace destroyed. Indeed, nothing better illustrates the confused thinking in the Government's approach than its almost exclusive reliance on the RAF to tackle the Isil threat, when it has just spent the past four years dramatically reducing the number of combat squadrons to a level where it is barely able to cover its existing international commitments, let alone open up a new theatre of operations. As Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, the former Chief of the Air Staff, has pointed out, the RAF had 30 combat squadrons at its disposal at the start of the 1991 conflict; today it has only seven. And demonstrating the exquisite lack of foresight with which our politicians these days approach military issues, the MoD is currently in the process of disbanding one of our three remaining Tornado combat formations.
Meanwhile, the Islamic State fighters, despite the coalition air strikes they have suffered in recent weeks, were yesterday reported to be involved in heavy fighting with Iraqi forces just a few miles outside the capital Baghdad. This is surely a damning illustration of the limitations of the West's military response.