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/2014/09/27/world/europe/british-parliament-vote-isis-airstrikes.html

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
British Parliament Debates Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq David Cameron Urges Parliament to Back Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq
(35 minutes later)
LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron urged the British Parliament on Friday to approve plans to join the American-led air campaign against Sunni militants of the Islamic State in Iraq. LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron urged the British Parliament on Friday to approve plans to join the American-led air campaign against the Sunni militants of the Islamic State in Iraq.
“The question is how we keep the British people safe from the threat” posed by the militants, he told a packed House of Commons at the beginning of a debate that was expected to last hours. “This is not a threat on the far side of the world,” he told lawmakers.
In particular, he said, Parliament had to decide "what role our armed forces should play in the international coalition to dismantle and ultimately destroy what President Obama has rightly called this network of death.” “Left unchecked, we will face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean, bordering a NATO member, with a declared and proven determination to attack our country and our people.
“There is no more serious an issue,” he said, “than asking our armed forces to put themselves in harm’s way to protect our country.” “This is not the stuff of fantasy — it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it.”
He added: “This is going to be a mission that will take not just months but years, but I believe we have to be prepared for that commitment.”
Wary of divisions among political leaders, senior government officials have said that Britain will not join the United States in attacking targets in Syria and will not commit ground forces.Wary of divisions among political leaders, senior government officials have said that Britain will not join the United States in attacking targets in Syria and will not commit ground forces.
Mr. Cameron acknowledged that he had no intention of asking Parliament to approve plans “that there was no consensus for” as Britain confronts the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS. Mr. Cameron acknowledged that he had no intention of asking Parliament to approve plans “that there was no consensus for” as Britain confronts the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL.
“There is no more serious an issue,” he said, “than asking our armed forces to put themselves in harm’s way to protect our country.”
The proposed British deployment is limited in scope, lagging that of France, which is already bombing targets in Iraq, and of the United States, which has embarked on far more muscular strikes with five Arab allies, in Syria as well as Iraq.The proposed British deployment is limited in scope, lagging that of France, which is already bombing targets in Iraq, and of the United States, which has embarked on far more muscular strikes with five Arab allies, in Syria as well as Iraq.
Syria, Mr. Cameron said, was “more complicated” because of the presence of President Bashar al-Assad and the civil war there.Syria, Mr. Cameron said, was “more complicated” because of the presence of President Bashar al-Assad and the civil war there.
The British leader again said he would not order ground forces into Iraq, where British troops were last deployed as allies of the United States in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath.The British leader again said he would not order ground forces into Iraq, where British troops were last deployed as allies of the United States in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath.
“The real work of destroying ISIL,” he said, referring to the Islamic State by an alternative acronym, “is for the Iraqi security forces.” But he acknowledged weakness in the Iraqi Army, which fled as ISIS advanced from Syria in June. “The real work of destroying ISIL,” he said,“is for the Iraqi security forces.” But he acknowledged weakness in the Iraqi Army, which fled as ISIS advanced from Syria in June.
“Do we need a better Iraqi Army that’s more capable on the ground? Yes, we do,” he said. “Do we need a better Iraqi Army that’s more capable on the ground? Yes, we do,” he said. He argued that Britain’s own security was threatened by the militants. In a display of urgency, Mr. Cameron had recalled Parliament for Friday’s debate.
Six Tornado warplanes of the Royal Air Force have been stationed at a British base on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus for several weeks, flying surveillance missions ostensibly as part of humanitarian efforts to help minorities threatened by the advance of fighters from the Islamic State.Six Tornado warplanes of the Royal Air Force have been stationed at a British base on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus for several weeks, flying surveillance missions ostensibly as part of humanitarian efforts to help minorities threatened by the advance of fighters from the Islamic State.
The planes could be flying combat missions within days, officials have said.The planes could be flying combat missions within days, officials have said.
Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, defended the scale of the British effort, saying in a radio interview that airstrikes and military action alone would not defeat the militants. Mr. Cameron has been cautious about seeking lawmakers’ approval since, in a politically embarrassing vote last year, Parliament refused by a narrow margin to endorse military action in Syria in support of the United States following the use of chemical weapons in the civil war there. This time, senior officials argue that Britain has been invited by the new government in Baghdad to come to its defense, offering a legal basis for intervention.
Mr. Cameron has approached the vote cautiously since, in a politically embarrassing vote last year, Parliament refused by a narrow margin to endorse military action in Syria in support of the United States following the use of chemical weapons in the civil war there. This time, senior officials argue that Britain has been invited by the new government in Baghdad to come to its defense, offering a legal basis for intervention.
At the same time, the assurance that Britain’s deployment will be limited to Iraq and exclude ground forces was designed in part to ensure the support of the opposition Labour Party, whose leader, Ed Miliband, has expressed concern about attacks in Syria without the approval of the United Nations.At the same time, the assurance that Britain’s deployment will be limited to Iraq and exclude ground forces was designed in part to ensure the support of the opposition Labour Party, whose leader, Ed Miliband, has expressed concern about attacks in Syria without the approval of the United Nations.
Even so, some lawmakers from the Labour Party have misgivings about supporting the deployment, Diane Abbott, a member of the party, said in a radio interview on Friday. “Let us be clear at the outset what is the proposition: airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq,” Mr. Miliband told Parliament, speaking in support of the deployment. “Not about ground troops. Nor about U.K. military action elsewhere. And it is a mission specifically aimed at ISIL.”
“As we debate this issue today,” he said, “I understand the qualms and, for some, deep unease that there will be about this undertaking both in this House and in the country.”
“Those who advocate military action today have to persuade members of this House and the country not only that ISIL is an evil organization but that it is we, Britain, who should take military action in Iraq,” he said.
Mr. Miliband said the call for military action met various criteria. The cause was just, he said, the campaign was legal and intervention was in the British national interest.
“Intervention always has risks but a dismembered Iraq would be more dangerous for Britain,” he said. “ISIL unchecked means more persecution of the innocent. If we say to people that we will pass on by, it surely makes it far harder to persuade Arab countries to play their part.”
A vote was expected around 5 p.m.A vote was expected around 5 p.m.
The situation is particularly tangled because militants of the Islamic State are holding Western hostages including a British taxi driver, Alan Henning, whom they have threatened to kill.The situation is particularly tangled because militants of the Islamic State are holding Western hostages including a British taxi driver, Alan Henning, whom they have threatened to kill.
British news reports have also said a small number of the British Muslims who have joined ISIS forces were killed in earlier American airstrikes. The presence of Western militants in the ranks of ISIS has fueled concern that some of them may return to their home countries to launch retaliatory attacks.
Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counterterrorism chief, was quoted by the BBC on Friday as saying the total number of Europeans fighting alongside the militants in Syria and Iraq now stood at 3,000. He also warned that Western airstrikes would increase the risk of retaliatory attacks.Gilles de Kerchove, the European Union’s counterterrorism chief, was quoted by the BBC on Friday as saying the total number of Europeans fighting alongside the militants in Syria and Iraq now stood at 3,000. He also warned that Western airstrikes would increase the risk of retaliatory attacks.
On Thursday, the British cabinet unanimously backed joining the United States and France in attacking militant targets in Iraq. But the government said it would not seek to extend its deployment to Syria without another vote in Parliament. The British debate coincided with news reports that Denmark had agreed to contribute seven F-16 warplanes to the campaign.
The British defense secretary, Michael Fallon, quoted Secretary of State John Kerry as estimating that the campaign could last two to three years. "That looks like a long haul to me,” Mr. Fallon said.
Even as Britain prepared to join the United States in the airstrikes, relations between the two countries’ security services grew strained after the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James B. Comey, said an ISIS figure shown in jihadi videos as beheading two American journalists and a British aid worker had been identified.
While Mr. Comey did not provide a name, British security officials were widely quoted as expressing frustration that the disclosure could jeopardize investigations by counterterrorism officials.