Iraq airstrikes: Why 2014 is not like 2013

(AFP/Getty)

David Cameron is once again to ask British MPs to support him in airstrikes in the Middle East.

Parliament is expected to be recalled on Friday to debate the possibility of military action against ISIL.

David Cameron, who is attending the UN General Assembly in New York, said the fight against the Islamist terrorist organisation is one “you cannot opt out of”.

British jets based on Cyprus could join US-led airstrikes within hours of the Prime Minister giving the order.

But the move comes just over a year after a vote for British air strikes in Syria was defeated in a Commons vote after a rebellion of Tory backbenchers and opposition from the Labour Party.

The Prime Minister clearly thinks he can secure a mandate for military action that he could not last year. What’s changed?

Sovereignty

The prime and significant difference is that last summer’s proposed action against President Assad’s regime, in the wake of chemical gas attacks on rebel fighters, would have been an attack on a sovereign state, albeit one that the West regarded as no longer legitimate.

Isil – despite its pretensions – is not a state that enjoys international recognition in any quarter, but a terrorist organisation. It has no elected government is unable to credibly claim it represents any people.

A different objective

That, in turn, reflects a different objective. In last summer’s vote, MPs complained that Britain’s mission in Syria was not clear: was it simply to destroy the regime’s stockpiles of chemical weapons; or to weaken the regime enough to swing the civil war in the rebels’ favour; or to simply send a message that the world would not tolerate chemical weapons attacks? And after that, what?

Now, the objective could not be simpler: to “degrade and destroy” Isil. Into the vacuum, the hope is that the recognised Iraqi state will enter.

No diplomatic option

The West had hoped – and still hopes – for a political solution in Syria, involving the removal of Assad. There is no political role for Isis; little negotiation can take place with a relatively small, fanatical and murderous rag-tag army.

British lives on the line

The sarin gas attack on Ghouta shocked the world, with between 300 and 1,400 dead. But, critically, none of the victims were Westerners, and in Parliament many asked whether this really had to be Britain’s fight.

And despite the most categoric assurances of the Intelligence Service, dozens of MPs who had been burnt by the Iraq war recoiled when asked to vote for war on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many simply refused to believe the evidence.

This time it is different. One British hostage, David Haines, has been killed; at least two others – Alan Henning and John Cantlie – face possible death. Hundreds of Britons are known to be fighting with Isil, and may return. And there is no doubt about the weight of evidence attesting to Isil atrocities.

In 2013, just 25 per cent of Britons surveyed supported action against Syria. Against Isil, polls have consistently put support at more than half.

International coalition

Last summer, Britain and France took the lead on pushing for air strikes in Syria; after Parliament’s vote, the Coalition fell apart. Russia, Syria’s backer, was implacably opposed.

Now the Coalition is much wider: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan are participants in airstrikes that, crucially, are already underway. Russia is muted. David Cameron has met President Rouhani of Iran – the first such meeting in over 30 years.

It is expected that there will be a formal request from the Iraqi PM later today for the Iraqi PM to ask Britain to join air strikes on it soil.

A question mark hangs over whether Britain would strike targets in Syria as well.

Handling Tory backbenchers

David Cameron’s defeat last summer was in large part a failure of party management. Parliament was recalled over the summer holiday at short notice. Many MPs failed to return in time; some, under pressure from their constituents, stayed away altogether. Many complained afterwards that they were open minded about war, but felt affronted by Downing Street’s failure to talk them through the case.

No such risks this time. Government whips have been keeping close tabs on where MPs are, and how quickly they can return to London. And they have been taking soundings for weeks about how they feel on action.

Labour

A question mark remains over Labour. Last year, David Cameron felt betrayed after Ed Miliband apparently shifted position within hours of the vote, tabling an alternative motion and defeating the Government.

Asked this morning about British action, Mr Miliband said he supported action in Iraq but wanted to see a UN Security Council resolution before action could be taken in Syria.

Asked if he would support a request for military action in Iraq, Miliband said: “I think it needs to be taken very seriously, yes. I’m open to that, my judgment about it would be can we make a contribution, can we make it effective and successful, and is it legitimate and legal.”

He added: “Iraq is a democratic state. It is a government that we would want to support. IS [Isis] is a threat not just to stability of the region, but a humanitarian threat and potentially a threat to the UK in the sense that it harbours terrorism

“The situation in Syria is somewhat different in the sense obviously it is not a democratic state. It has the Assad regime. We supported yesterday’s American action. I think the legitimacy of action being taken in Syria would be better to have a UN security council resolution.”

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Blog