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 5 Version 6
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 in Iraq against the Islamic State militant group, saying there was no “walk-on-by” alternative to intervention. LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron urged 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,” he said. “This is not the stuff of fantasy — it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it.”“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.”
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. Mr. Cameron recalled Parliament for the debate on Friday, which he hopes will culminate in a vote to support a British deployment in the skies over Iraq. A vote in his favor could offset some of the deep political embarrassment that resulted 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.
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 a new defeat in Parliament and eager 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.
“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.
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. As he outlined his case for intervention, Mr. Cameron faced persistent and tough questioning from lawmakers about the campaign’s objectives, the risk that it will expand beyond its initial goals, and the readiness of Iraqi forces to take advantage of airstrikes.
“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. “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 said in 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 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.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.
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.” 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.”“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. Supporting the call for airstrikes, Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said that he understood the unease in parts of Britain about another military engagement but said that ISIS’s 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.”“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.”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. For some Labour lawmakers, the aversion to joining the campaign in Syria is rooted in Britain’s experience under the Labour government of Tony Blair, whose decision in 2003 to join the United States in invading Iraq on disputed grounds led British forces, like American troops, into a quagmire from which it took years to withdraw.
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. Western nations hope that Iraqi government troops can be bolstered sufficiently to challenge ISIS forces on the ground. But, in Syria, government forces are loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. Western governments have backed his opponents and want to avoid any perception that they might be aligning themselves with Mr. Assad or supporting his brutal efforts to crush the revolt against him.
On Friday, Mr. Miliband seemed to be keeping his options for the future open.
Referring to Syria, where civil war has been raging for three years, he said: “The point I have been making in the last few days is, in my view, when we are not talking about being invited in by a democratic state, it would be better — I put it no higher than that — it would be better to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution.
A “lot more work needs to be done” in Syria, he said.
Equally, several lawmakers, mainly Conservatives, criticzed the exclusion of attacks on targets in Syria, arguing that ISIS is based there and has all but destroyed the border with Iraq, limiting the efficacy of strikes restricted to Iraqi territory.
Six Tornado warplanes of the Royal Air Force have been stationed at a British base in 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.
The British military was last deployed in Iraq with that of the United States in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath.
“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.“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.
“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. “Do we need a better Iraqi Army that’s more capable on the ground? Yes, we do,” he said.
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. A vote was expected late Friday afternoon.
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 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.