I RECEIVED quite a few emails and letters just before last week’s vote on air strikes in Iraq against Isil.

Notwithstanding the confidence of those of my correspondents who opposed such military action, that they spoke for the majority of my constituents, actually my postbag had a majority in favour of the action – as did the opinion polls.

My correspondence contained very thoughtful contri-butions on both sides of the argument. There were, however, a significant minority of those who opposed air strikes who took an isolationist view of the world.

A worrying number of our countrymen and women seem to believe that we can bury our heads in the sand and all the threats and complications of the modern world will pass us by. Some correspondents even put it in exactly these terms: that if we keep our heads down and don’t get involved, then we will not be targeted. I think that they are simply wrong about the facts, but I also find that I am profoundly out of sympathy with them about the historic role of our nation.

The reality is that there has now grown up within the world a violent and perverse ideology which is opposed to everything our country stands for. This perversion of the Muslim faith begins by attacking other Muslims and forces them, on pain of death, to adopt its own interpretation of the religion. It makes no secret, however, of its intention to come for us next –and it has already done so with terrorist outrages and the gruesome murder of hostages. It is explicit in its determination to destroy democracy, tolerance and to subjugate women. It is ludicrous to believe if we isolate ourselves by abstaining from attacking it, it will somehow just let us be.

Our island nation, with its outward-looking Anglo-Saxon heritage, has always sought to shape the world in which we live, rather than just be shaped by it. We have never been a “neutral” country in the great conflicts that have convulsed the world since the end of the Middle Ages. It is for this very reason that we maintain the fourth largest defence budget on the planet and we retain our permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. Unlike those of my corres-pondents who want us to creep quietly into the shadows in the hope that we will be left alone, I believe we have a leadership role from which we, and the world, benefits.

Now, having chosen to stand up and confront this new terrorist menace, I entirely accept that there are differences of view as to how best to confront it, and whether authorising air strikes is the wisest course. What I do not understand are those who don’t want to confront it at all.

I accept all the limitations of air strikes as a means of defeating Isil, our sophisticated ordinance will kill plenty of terrorists, but it will take a much broader and much longer-term strategy to kill terrorism. It will take investment in good governance, conflict resolution, education and economic development, all of which will cost money. It is instructive that the isolationists who oppose military action, are also the most vehement in their opposition to such international development expenditure.

Of course bombing Isil will not be enough, but it can be a part of the contribution to defeating it. Isil’s advance is causing mayhem now: it is killing by the thousand, creating refugees in the most desperate of circumstances by the hundreds of thousands. We have the means to do something about it. I find it extraordinary that people write to me telling me that we should just look the other way.