Attempting to allay legislators’ concerns, he argued that military action is legal under the U.N. charter’s right to self-defense. And he said that while ground forces would be needed as well, they would not be British.
Cameron said airstrikes will not increase the danger of attack in Britain, already considered high. He said British authorities have foiled seven attacks in the past year either planned or inspired by ISIS.
Cameron wants to hold a vote in Parliament, but said he would only do so if “there is a clear majority for action, because we will not hand a publicity coup to ISIL”—another acronym for the militant group.
He’s likely to decide after Thursday’s Commons debate whether to hold a vote next week.
Initial reaction from opposition lawmakers was cautious. Jeremy Corbyn, the left-wing leader of the main opposition Labour Party, said military action could have “unintended consequences”—as it did in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.
Angus Robertson of the Scottish National Party said his legislators would not support “a bombing campaign without effective ground support in place or a fully costed reconstruction and stability plan.”
The debate is shadowed by the legacy of Parliament’s divisive 2003 decision to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. That decision was made on the basis of flawed intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and in the absence of an adequate plan for postwar reconstruction.
“This is about learning the lessons of Iraq,” Cameron said, stressing that “we are not in the business of dismantling the Syrian state or its institutions.”
Friends Read Free