This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/world/europe/david-cameron-britain-syria-isis.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
David Cameron Bolsters Call for Lawmakers to Authorize Syrian Airstrikes Britain and Germany Test Support for Stronger Steps Against ISIS
(about 7 hours later)
LONDON — The British prime minister, David Cameron, stepped up efforts on Thursday to persuade wavering lawmakers to authorize airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria, arguing that it was wrong to expect other nations “to carry the burdens and risks” of striking a group that threatened terrorist attacks in Britain. LONDON — The diplomatic push by President François Hollande of France to rally allies in the fight against the Islamic State since the Paris terror attacks has begun to stir European capitals, with leaders in both Britain and Germany taking tentative steps to test the level of support at home for a more robust military engagement in Iraq and Syria.
Responding to the concerns of a committee of lawmakers skeptical about attacking Syrian targets, Mr. Cameron released a 36-page document detailing a plan to try to tackle the threat posed by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, diplomatically as well as militarily. After a session with President Obama in Washington on Tuesday, Mr. Hollande flew to Moscow on Thursday to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, continuing his campaign to bridge tensions and forge a common alliance against the Islamic State, which France blames for the attacks in Paris two weeks ago that left 130 people dead.
“As the threat from ISIL to our national security grows, we must take action — recognizing that no course of action is without risk, but that inaction — not dealing with ISIL at source — also carries grave risk,” Mr. Cameron wrote in the document. Having also met with Mr. Hollande this week, Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, on Thursday described the Islamic State, also known as ISIL, as a “grave danger” as he sought to persuade wavering lawmakers to authorize airstrikes in Syria, arguing that British security should not be outsourced to its international allies.
After Britain’s involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, British politicians know that their voters are weary of military entanglements in the Middle East. “Every day we fail to act is a day when ISIL can grow stronger and more plots can be undertaken,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament. “That is why all the advice I have received — the military advice, the diplomatic advice and the security advice — all says, yes, that the risks of inaction are greater.”
At present, Britain’s air campaign is limited to Iraq because of a parliamentary vote in 2013 that rejected the idea of bombing Syria. Mr. Cameron has said that he will not seek to overturn that decision until he is sure he has a parliamentary majority to do so, and, while there are signs that he may opt for a vote soon, there will not be one this week. Germany, too, while still sensitive when it comes to military deployment abroad, has reacted swiftly to the request from France, its closest European ally, to do more against Islamic State. After meetings of top ministers, and pending parliamentary approval, the Germans will offer Tornado warplanes for surveillance, plus satellite intelligence, a frigate and perhaps airborne refueling, government sources told the German news media.
Mr. Cameron’s supporters point out that, in 2013, the proposal rejected by lawmakers was to attack the forces of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. Each of France’s allies remains hesitant to enter the messy Syrian conflict, the dangers of which became apparent this week when Turkish forces shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border.
Now the question is whether to attack the Islamic State, the threat of which was emphasized by the attacks almost two weeks ago in Paris. American officials have indicated that they would like European nations to do more in the fight, and that differences with Russia over the future role of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria — Moscow would like him to stay, and Paris and Washington would like him to go — remain a barrier to a broad alliance.
Mr. Cameron argued in the document that attacking targets in Syria was legally justified on the grounds of self-defense. But the Paris attacks, and Mr. Hollande’s diplomatic appeals, now seem to be chipping away at some of the reluctance in Europe.
The composition of the British Parliament has changed after a general election in May in which Mr. Cameron’s Conservative Party won a full majority, allowing it to govern without its former coalition ally, the Liberal Democrats. In Germany, the defense minister, Ursula von der Leyen, announced on Wednesday that up to 650 German soldiers would go to Mali to free up French forces from there, and that their current training and equipping of Kurdish pesh merga forces in northern Iraq would be expanded when the parliamentary mandate comes up for renewal in January.
The opposition Labour Party has also changed leaders, electing Jeremy Corbyn, a left-wing politician who is against airstrikes in Syria. However, his support among his lawmakers is thin, and, after the attacks in Paris, a number of them are likely to support airstrikes in Syria, despite what their leader says. For his part, Mr. Cameron now believes that since the Paris attacks he can win approval to ratchet up British military engagement, but also knows that many lawmakers remain skeptical about an extended bombing campaign against the Islamic State.
The attack in Paris, “could have been in London. If ISIL had their way, it would be in London,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament.
While Mr. Cameron received some significant support from senior deputies during a parliamentary debate on Thursday, he also faced tough questioning about which forces could be used to take and hold territory.
Mr. Cameron, who has ruled out the use of British troops, said that there are “around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters, principally of the Free Syrian Army, who do not belong to extremist groups, and with whom we can coordinate attacks on ISIL.” Julian Lewis, chairman of the defense select committee, described the assertion as “a revelation to me.”
A former Conservative cabinet minister, Peter Lilley, asked for an assurance that “the Free Syrian Army actually exists rather than is a label that we apply to a ragbag group of clans and tribal forces with no coherent force.”
At present, Britain’s air campaign against the Islamic State is limited to Iraq because of a parliamentary vote in 2013, which rejected the idea of bombing Syria, denting Mr. Cameron’s authority in the process.
Because of that rebuff, Mr. Cameron will not risk another vote until he is sure he will win. No date has yet been set despite signs that this could happen soon.
His decision will come down to parliamentary arithmetic. British politicians know that voters are cautious about military entanglements in the Middle East because of the legacy of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But Mr. Cameron’s supporters point out that in 2013, the proposal rejected by British lawmakers was to attack the forces of the Syrian president, Mr. Assad.
Now the question is whether to attack the Islamic State, and Mr. Cameron has long argued that it makes little sense to limit attacks to Iraq when the group does not recognize the frontier.
On Thursday he argued that bombing in Syria was legally justified as self-defense, and suggested that it would not increase the risk of retaliatory terror attacks significantly, since Britain “is already in the top tier of countries that ISIL is targeting.”
Though some experts doubt that British involvement would matter much militarily, Mr. Cameron argued that Britain could deploy Brimstone — a precision missile system which, he said, “even the Americans do not have,” — as well as Raptor, a reconnaissance airborne pod for Tornado aircraft.
Since the 2013 vote, the composition of the British Parliament has altered after a general election in May in which Mr. Cameron’s Conservative Party won a full majority, allowing it to govern without its former coalition ally, the Liberal Democrats.
The opposition Labour Party has also changed leaders, electing Jeremy Corbyn, a left-wing politician who has previously opposed airstrikes in Syria. He acknowledged the threat to Britain from Islamic State, but added that “the question must now be whether extending the U.K. bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce or increase that threat, and whether it will counter or spread the terror campaign ISIL is waging in the Middle East.”