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.
David Cameron Urges Parliament to Back Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq
British Parliament Backs Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq
(about 2 hours later)
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.
LONDON — The British Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Friday to approve airstrikes in Iraq against the militants of the Islamic State. The vote brought a country weary of international engagements belatedly into the American-led campaign against Sunni extremists.
“This is not a threat on the far side of the world,” he told lawmakers.
Prime Minister David Cameron called Parliament back from recess to consider the motion, which authorizes the government to conduct air operations over Iraq. It does not authorize the deployment of ground troops, nor does it authorize action in Syria.
“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.”
The decision was seen as significant, after British lawmakers voted last year not to join proposed strikes against Syria over its use of chemical weapons.
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.
The vote last year dented Britain’s reputation as America’s closest ally in the fight against extremism, and the debate on Friday was seen as a test of Britain’s stomach for further military intervention after unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
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.
“In military terms, the vote has no significance whatsoever, but politically it has more importance,” said James Strong, a foreign policy expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science. “There is a sense in the United States that if even Britain thinks it is a bad idea, then it probably is.”
“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.”
Among America’s European allies, France and the Netherlands have already said that they would take part in the bombing campaign in Iraq, and Denmark and Belgium did the same on Friday.
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.
Wary of a defeat in Parliament and eager to avert opposition from the Labour Party, Mr. Cameron said on Friday that Britain would not, at present, 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.
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.
Mr. Cameron said that while he did not believe there was a legal barrier to Britain conducting airstrikes in Syria, he was proposing action exclusively in Iraq for the sake of political consensus.
“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.
As he outlined his case for intervention, Mr. Cameron faced persistent questioning from lawmakers about the campaign’s objectives, the risk that the mission could expand beyond its initial scope, and the readiness of Iraqi forces to take advantage of air support. But some lawmakers also argued that the motion did not go far enough.
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.
“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.”
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.”
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. “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.”
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.
He added that a “dismembered Iraq” would be more dangerous to Britain than taking military action now, and that Britain should pride itself on its “tradition of internationalism.”
“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.”
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 led British forces, like American troops, into a quagmire for years.
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.”
Western nations hope that Iraqi government troops can be bolstered sufficiently to defeat the Islamic State’s fighters on the ground. In Syria, where the Islamic State is battling both with the government of President Bashar al-Assad and with other rebel groups, some of which have Western backing, the picture is more complicated. Western governments want to avoid any appearance that they are aligning with Mr. Assad or supporting his brutal efforts to crush the revolt against him.
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.
Mr. Miliband said of the Syria situation that “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.”
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.
In preparation, the Royal Air Force has had six Tornado warplanes flying surveillance missions over Iraq for several weeks, ostensibly as part of humanitarian efforts to help minorities threatened by the Islamic State.
On Friday, Mr. Miliband seemed to be keeping his options for the future open.
Kenneth Clarke, the former Conservative cabinet minister, said Britain’s participation in the air campaign would be “almost symbolic,” but would help London to press other capitals to take steps against the Islamic State.
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.
In the debate on Friday, several members of Parliament, mainly Conservatives, criticized the motion for not authorizing action in Syria, arguing that the Islamic State was based there and had all but erased the Syria-Iraq border. But others had different concerns, including John Baron, also a Conservative, who warned of a “real danger that we are going into a cul-de-sac” without “an exit strategy.”
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 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.
A vote was expected late Friday afternoon.
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.
The British debate coincided with news reports that Denmark had agreed to contribute seven F-16 warplanes to the campaign.
