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 7 Version 8
British Parliament Backs Airstrikes Against ISIS in Iraq 3 Nations Offer Limited Support to Attack on ISIS
(about 9 hours later)
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. LONDON — Britain, Belgium and Denmark lined up Friday behind the United States in its fight against the Islamic State group, agreeing to military operations in Iraq — but drawing a line for now against direct intervention in Syria.
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. Even the half-step of support, however, offered a boost to President Obama’s effort to cast the fight as a global campaign to beat back a jihadist force that has assembled thousands of radical fighters and seized territory straddling Iraq and Syria.
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. The entry of the British into the coalition — which now includes five Arab states, France, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark — provides Washington a broader consensus for what is described as an extended campaign waged without a resolution authorizing the use of military force by the United Nations Security Council.
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. But Europe’s resolve stopped at the border with Syria, where the Islamic State has built the foundations of its self-declared caliphate. Europeans have been reluctant to take military action inside Syria, in part out of concern about fueling a larger regional conflict, in part because of public opinion in their own nations and in part because of a desire to avoid helping the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, to survive the rebellion against him by a wide array of opposition groups, including the Islamic State.
“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.” For now, the attacks within Syria have been carried out only by the United States and five Arab nations that consider the Islamic State to be a threat to them and to regional stability.
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. European leaders asserted that failing to confront the Sunni radicals would leave their own nations vulnerable to attack by fighters, including European citizens, who have been trained by the radical group and can travel relatively easily from the battlefield to Western Europe.
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. In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron called Parliament back from recess to approve British participation. But his policy was limited by what the opposition Labour Party was willing to support. And Labour, itself divided, refused to countenance the idea of attacking Syria.
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. “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, of the British vote. “There is a sense in the United States that if even Britain thinks it is a bad idea, then it probably is.”
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 parliamentary motion specifically rules out the deployment of any British ground troops in Iraq, although the British are active in training and equipping the Iraqis, mostly Kurds, who are fighting the Islamic State.
“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.” While Mr. Cameron argued that there is “a strong case” for carrying the air war to Syria, as Washington is doing, he also promised that any British military involvement in Syria would require another parliamentary debate and vote, which is considered unlikely before the general election next May.
Friday’s motion was approved 524 to 43, and essentially means that six British Tornado fighter jets that have been flying reconnaissance missions over Iraq can now be ordered to drop bombs as well.
Mr. Cameron was desperate to avoid the humiliation of August 2013, when his motion to authorize the bombing of Syria alongside the United States, to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons, was defeated in Parliament. Then, the Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, opposed the government motion, and both he and Mr. Cameron were considered to have mismanaged the vote.
In the end, President Obama, too, decided last year not to bomb Syria and instead accepted a Russian proposal to oversee the elimination of Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, and dismantling its production facilities.
This time, with one British hostage executed by the Islamic State and two more threatened, Mr. Cameron did his homework, consulting his backbenchers and working out a deal with Mr. Miliband, who has argued that bombing in Syria would help Mr. Assad and would be “better” with a Security Council resolution, which Russia and China are considered unlikely to allow.
The other main European military power, France, is also wary of participating in airstrikes in Syria. President François Hollande on Tuesday said France joined the coalition in bombing Iraq because the government in Baghdad had asked, sidestepping a question on Syria by saying that every country in the coalition needed to share the burden of required tasks.
One French official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the French position was that no action should be taken that would have the effect of aiding Mr. Assad.
“That is a crucial point for us because we think that his stubbornness is a major factor in the crisis, as well as an essential driving force in the crisis,” the diplomat said. “So what we don’t want is that airstrikes allow al-Assad forces to redeploy themselves on the ground.”
Belgium’s Parliament on Friday approved the deployment of fighter jets, cargo planes and military support to help with the fight in Iraq. In Denmark, Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said her nation would contribute seven fighter jets to the coalition in Iraq.
Germany has not taken part in the conflict militarily but has agreed to supply aid and provide training to Kurdish forces and Iraqi security forces. 
Britain is still dealing with the trauma of 2003, when the country felt that Prime Minister Tony Blair, too eager to stand alongside Washington, pushed Britain into war in Iraq with false intelligence about Saddam Hussein supposedly having weapons of mass destruction. Only since then have prime ministers thought it wise to get parliamentary authorization before military action.
The vote last year, which some considered the first time a British prime minister had been defeated on a major military issue since the American War of Independence, dented Britain’s reputation as America’s closest ally in the fight against terrorism. The debate on Friday was seen as a test of Britain’s stomach for further military intervention alongside the United States after Iraq and the hardly more popular war in Afghanistan.
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.
“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, using another name for the Islamic State. “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.”
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, Mr. Miliband was nonetheless careful to present himself as even more cautious than Mr. Cameron. Mr. Miliband 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.”
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.” He said 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.”
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. At the United Nations on Friday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, told reporters that the American-led airstrikes should be done with the “cooperation” of the Syrian authorities, without which, he said, airstrikes would be against the law. Asked if Russia would play a role in the future, Mr. Lavrov said, “We are fighting against terrorism consistently, constantly, not just when someone announces a coalition. It’s not some pop-up idea for us.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”