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 4 Version 5
David Cameron Urges Parliament to Back Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq David Cameron Urges Parliament to Back Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq
(about 2 hours later)
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. LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron urged the British Parliament on Friday to approve plans to join the American-led air campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State militant group, saying there was no “walk-on-by” alternative to intervention.
“This is not a threat on the far side of the world,” he told lawmakers.“This is not a threat on the far side of the world,” he told lawmakers.
“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. “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,” he said. “This is not the stuff of fantasy — it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it.”
“This is not the stuff of fantasy — it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it.” Mr. Cameron recalled Parliament for the debate on Friday, which he hopes will culminate with support for a deployment in the skies over Iraq. A vote in his favor could offset some of the deep political embarrassment last year when the House of Commons rejected a call to join the United States in military action against Syria, damaging Britain’s reputation as America’s closest ally in such ventures.
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 a new rebuttal from Parliament and keen to avert opposition from the Labour Party, Mr. Cameron said that Britain would not join the United States in attacking targets in Syria and would not commit ground forces to fight the Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL.
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 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.”“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. As he outlined his case for intervention, Mr. Cameron faced persistent and tough questioning from lawmakers about the campaign’s objectives, the risk of mission creep and the readiness of Iraqi forces to take advantage of airstrikes.
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. “We would want to see a stable Iraq and — over time — a stable Syria, too, ISIL degraded and then destroyed as a serious terrorist organization,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament. “But let me be frank: We should not expect this to happen quickly, the hallmarks of this campaign will be patience and persistence not shock and awe,” he added.
“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. The mission will take “not months but years,” Mr. Cameron said. He added that he did not believe there was a legal barrier to airstrikes in Syria, but said he was only proposing action exclusively in Iraq for the sake of political consensus.
“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. Mr. Cameron said the militant group had “already murdered one British hostage and is threatening the lives of two more, adding that for Britain there “isn’t a walk-on-by option.”
“ISIL is a terrorist organization unlike those we have dealt with before,” Mr. Cameron said. “The brutality is staggering: beheadings, crucifixions, the gouging out of eyes, the use of rape as a weapon, the slaughter of children. All these things belong to the Dark Ages.”
Supporting the call for airstrikes, Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, said that he understood the unease in parts of Britain about another military engagement but said that ISIS’ ideology had “nothing to do with the peaceful religion” of Islam.
“Let us be clear at the outset what is the proposition: airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq,” Mr. Miliband said. “Not about ground troops. Nor about U.K. military action elsewhere. And it is a mission specifically aimed at ISIL.”
He added that American airstrikes had already succeeded in holding ISIS back, that a “dismembered Iraq” would be more dangerous for Britain and that the country should pride itself on its “tradition of internationalism.”
Kenneth Clarke, a former Conservative cabinet minister, described Britain’s participation as “almost symbolic” but supported the move, saying it would help increase the country’s ability to put diplomatic pressure on other nations to take steps against ISIS.
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.
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. The British military was last deployed in Iraq with that of the United States in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath.
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. “The real work of destroying ISIL,” Mr. Cameron said on Friday, “is for the Iraqi security forces.” But he acknowledged weakness in the Iraqi Army, which fled as ISIS advanced from Syria in June.
“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.” “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.
“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.” Mr. Miliband said the call for military action met various requirements. The cause was just, he said, the campaign was legal and intervention was in the British national interest.
“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.
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.
The British debate coincided with news reports that Denmark had agreed to contribute seven F-16 warplanes to the campaign.The British debate coincided with news reports that Denmark had agreed to contribute seven F-16 warplanes to the campaign.