Commons to vote on Iraq IS attacks on Friday
The Commons will debate whether to authorise attacks on Islamic State (IS) in Iraq on Friday starting at 10.30, with a vote at 5pm.
Neither Labour nor the Tories are allowing the PM or the military the freedom to attack Islamic State forces in Syria.
Labour believes that there is legal authority to attack in Syria, that’s why Ed Miliband said in his speech yesterday that he supported the US action that started in Syria on Monday.
He “supports” it, it seems, but doesn’t rate it as a well thought through strategy. Labour is unconvinced that the US and its allies know what their longer term plan is for Syria.
How do you avoid an attack from the air there opening up possibilities of more chaos and civil war on the ground?
David Cameron and President Obama have been insisting they do have a plan.
The US is tripling aid to the Syrian opposition – the train/equip/advise work. They say IS spends a lot of energy trying to attack the Syrian opposition forces. Attacking IS will not mean they accidentally prop up President Assad.
Labour is not convinced.
As an adjunct to this, Labour is trying to ride the currents of opinion in its own party on the importance of the United Nations. So you have Ed Miliband sounding yesterday as though a UN Security Council vote was necessary before he could back military action and today saying (on BBC Radio) it “would be better” to have a UN Security Council motion.
This, senior Labour sources say, is not the central problem or hurdle to be cleared. But they’re trying to have it both ways – upholding the UN but saying action is legal without the UN – and they risk ending up being seen as all too ready to franchise out decisions to veto-wielding Russia and China.
David Cameron would prefer to have been by the US’s side in the first attacks on IS. But he didn’t want “Iraq” and “British bombs” to stalk the front pages through the last stages of Scotland’s referendum.
In the days after that, Labour has held him back a bit but so has pressure from within his own party. The Tory high command was not at all convinced it could get attacks on Syria past its own MPs. One senior Tory said No.10 was slightly relieved that Labour had got them off that hook. Lib Dems weren’t confident they could deliver their party either if Syria was in the motion.
The Ministry of Defence and elements of the Foreign Office will be acutely aware that after pulling back from the Syrian action planned last summer, after reputational damage over the British role in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain has turned up at the side of its mighty American ally late (after France and Sunni allies) and with conditions.
Given the strength of US forces in the area, the British military contribution in actual air attacks – as opposed to other support for attacks – is largely a gesture to show the breadth of international support, Britain’s willingness to step up to the plate, and to renew the bonds between the UK and the US.
No.10 will feel that token has been devalued by delay and trimmings.
It will worry about its standing in the US. Events in Scotland and decisions made in the Labour leader’s hotel room in Manchester have had a big impact on British foreign policy.
But the biggest limitation is imposed by the relatively recent constitutional innovation of parliamentary votes before military action. We are in the early years of this new era, but it looks like it massively inhibits military action in ways that would’ve been unthinkable to previous Prime Ministers.
Follow @GaryGibbonBlog on Twitter