on Thursday Britain PM David Cameron says time to bomb Islamic
State militants in Syria because Britain cannot subcontract its
security to other countries". Many Britons are wary of entering into
another war in the Middle East after Western intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya failed to bring stability to the region and some believe led to the
rise of militants groups such as Islamic State. But after Islamic State claimed
responsibility for killing 130 people in Paris, some members of parliament who
were reluctant to launch further military action in the Middle East now feel it
is needed to protect Britain from such attacks.Cameron lost a vote on air
strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces in 2013 and must
persuade some wary members of his own Conservative Party and in the opposition.
Labour Party to back him if he is to win parliament's support for military
action. After setting out his case for action, Cameron appeared to have
persuaded at least two of 30 party "rebels" who voted against him in
2013, but other opposition lawmakers said he had yet to answer questions about
how the bombing would achieve peace. "We do not have the luxury of being
able to wait until the Syrian conflict is resolved before tackling ISIL
(Islamic State)," Cameron wrote in a response to the parliament's Foreign
Affairs Committee, which had said a policy to extend air strikes was
"incoherent" without a strategy to defeat the militants."It is
wrong for the United Kingdom to sub-contract its security to other countries,
and to expect the aircrews of other nations to carry the burdens and the risks
of striking ISIL in Syria to stop terrorism here in Britain," he added.He
said in the 24-page response that the campaign against Islamic State was
entering a new phase, focusing on command and control, supply lines and
financial support - something that suited Britain's capabilities. Fearful
of losing standing on the world stage, Cameron said Britain should respond to
requests from allies, including the United States, but said he would not put a
vote to parliament unless there was a majority backing action.He said he did
not want to hand Islamic State a "propaganda coup" by losing a vote.
The government has not set a timetable for any vote but Cameron said earlier
this week parliament would be able to consider his case over the weekend,
prompting many to expect he could push for a vote as early as next week.
Cameron told some lawmakers, who fear joining the air strikes over Syria would
make Britain more of a target, that with the threat to the country already as
high as it could be, the only way of reducing it would be to
"degrade" Islamic State.British politicians are keenly aware of
public opinion over whether the launch air strikes on Syria. A poll by YouGov
this week said 59 percent of people would approve of such strikes, compared with
58 percent a week earlier.After Cameron's statement, the chair of the Foreign
Affairs Committee, Crispin Blunt, said he now believed parliament should
support the prime minister's judgement "that the United Kingdom should
play a full role in the coalition". Another Conservative lawmaker, Sarah
Wollaston, said she had changed her mind and was now in favour of air strikes.But
others, in Labour and the Scottish National Party, were less convinced, saying
the prime minister had yet to present a clear peace plan for Syria after the
military campaign. Others feared that air strikes would pave the way for
sending in ground troops, which Cameron denied. Cameron is hoping to find some
support among Labour lawmakers, who are deeply split over their new leader
Jeremy Corbyn's anti-war stance. Breaking with a British political tradition of
using a "party whip" to maintain parliamentary discipline, Corbyn's
finance spokesman said Labour was considering allowing its lawmakers to vote as
they wish. "In these sort of issues of conscience it is better to allow
MPs to make their own minds up,
Do you think AAP will perform better in Delhi polls without alliance?