British prime minister David Cameron easily won the approval of MPs for bombing strikes against Islamic State (formerly known as Isis) militants in Iraq. He also gave notice that he wanted to hit targets inside Syria.
Mr Cameron, painting a grim picture for MPs who were brought to Westminster for a one-day debate, said Islamic State “is a terrorist organisation unlike those we have dealt with before.
“The brutality is staggering: beheadings, crucifixions, gouging out of eyes, the use of rape as a weapon and the slaughter of children. All these things belong to the Dark Ages.”
Six Royal Air Force Tornadoes should begin hitting Islamic State targets inside Iraq from Sunday, alongside aircraft from Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Australia and Middle Eastern countries.
The limited British role is a consequence of Downing Street fears about placing itself in the vanguard, following last year’s rejection by MPs of RAF attacks on Syria. The motion put before MPs deliberately did not endorse attacks on Syria and made clear that “any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote”.
In a lengthy speech, the prime minister made it clear that Islamic State needed to be destroyed in Syria, and he backed attacks that have been launched there by the US and five Arab states, including Saudi Arabia. He said, in an illustration of his lack of room to manoeuvre: “I believe that there is a strong case for us to do more in Syria, but I did not want to bring a motion to the House today on which there was not consensus.”
Legally justified
The prime minister said attacks on Syria would be legally justified because of the threat posed to Iraq by the Syrian-based Islamic State. “If there was a need to take urgent action to protect British interest or stop a humanitarian crisis, I would order that, then come to the House,” he told MPs.
However, Downing Street later accepted the political reality that attacks on Syria are out for now unless Labour leader Ed Miliband drops his opposition to them.
In a carefully argued speech, the Labour leader accepted that attacks on Syria would be legally justified, but said it would be better if they were covered by a United Nations mandate.
In terms of the military strategy, which is substantially different in both countries, it is hoped that Islamic State in Iraq will be attacked by Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces, he said.
However, in Syria the situation is far less clear, as coalition forces that include western military will not act in alliance with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Reflecting divisions over the airstrikes, Labour’s Rushanara Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow – a strong Muslim constituency – quit over Labour’s stand.
Illegal
Wolverhampton MP Pat McFadden, however, questioned whether it could be right for the UK to approve of attacks made by others in Syria, but not be willing to be involved itself.
“If it is illegal in Syria, why is it not illegal in the US? Militarily, what is the point of chasing Isis through Iraq, but barely in Syria? Why is it right to come to the aid of victims in Iraq but not under a dictatorship in Syria?” he asked.
Respect MP George Galloway, who previously held the Bethnal Green seat before decamping to Bradford, claimed Iraqis living in Islamic State- dominated lands were tacitly supporting the terrorists.
“They don’t concentrate as an army. They don’t live in bases. The only way a force of that size could successfully hold the territory that they hold is if they have a population which is acting as the water in which they are swimming. And that population is quiescent because of western policies and western invasion and occupation. That’s the truth of the matter.
“Isil could not survive for five minutes if the tribes in the west of Iraq rose up against them,” he said.
