Commons vote on Syria airstrikes (round 2).

[BlackLabel]

After Cameron's failure to win parliamentary approval to launch military action against Assad in 2013 we are going to have another vote on bombing Syria sometime soon. Of course this time we'll be leaving Assad alone and concentrating on ISIS.

bbc said:

David Cameron has promised a "comprehensive strategy" to win MPs' backing for bombing Islamic State militants in Syria as well as Iraq.

The prime minister told the Commons the Paris attacks had strengthened the case for air strikes, suggesting there could be a fresh vote on the issue.

He wanted to "do the right thing for our country", and hit the "head of the snake" of IS in Raqqa, Syria, he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34846457

What difference will expanding our operations into Syria actually make? The Americans and the French have aircraft carriers in the region and both have lots of air power - F16s, fifth-generation F-22s, B52 and B2 bombers, Rafale and Mirage jets etc.

Will 7 or 8 British Tornados really make a significant difference?

Politically it will be interesting to see Labour implode over this issue. Many senior Labour MPs will vote with the government just to get one over on Corbyn. Some said the last vote was humiliating for Dave, well this one may well be the same for the Labour leader.

Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 17th November 17:36

[BlackLabel]

Osborne states that if the government fails to get Parliamentary backing for air strikes in Syria it would be a propaganda victory for IS. No pressure on MPs then.


http://news.sky.com/story/1591964/mps-to-vote-on-i...

Meanwhile the Foreign Affairs Select Committee have concluded that:

parliament.uk said:

we believe that there should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria. In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something is still incoherent.

34.We consider that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to the conflict in Syria and thereby removing one of the main facilitators of ISIL’s rise.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmfaff/457/45707.htm

Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 23 November 00:47

[BlackLabel]

The PM said today that there are 70000 'non-Islamist', 'moderate', and 'credible' ground forces waiting to take over the country once ISIS (and presumably Assad) leave. This is a figure given to him by the intelligence community so must be true. Who knows perhaps these moderate Syrians are ready to attack ISIS and Assad's troops in 45 minutes.

"David Cameron: Syria air strikes will make UK 'safer' but war could last for years"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

[BlackLabel]

KarlMac said:

I would have more support for action in Syria of there wasn't such a large number of domestic issues that needed resolution first.

Why is the conversation so focused around air strikes?

Because it would show the international community that we are doing 'something'.

All the military experts say that British air strikes without a credible ground offensive is just pissing in the wind - on it's own 7 or 8 aging aircrafts bombing Syria will make no difference at all in the grand scheme of things. Which is why Cameron surprised the house today with his comment about a 70,000 strong Syrian force ready to take action on the ground.

Cameron's desire to involve the RAF in Syria is a political issue and not a military one - he is embarrassed that Britain is perceived as not doing enough in the eyes of the Americans and the wider international community. I suppose this is an argument which has some merit however I wish he would be honest about it and tell us the truth about his motives to get us involved in Syria.

[BlackLabel]

Shock, horror - those 70,000 'moderate' opposition rebels we were told about do not exist.

Cameron at the time of the Syria vote said:

Last week I told the House that we believe there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters… who do not belong to extremist groups… and with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Daesh

Cameron today said:

…yes, some of the opposition forces are Islamist, some of them are relatively hardline Islamist, and some of them are more what we would describe as more secular democrats.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-air-strikes-david-cameron-admits-there-aren-t-enough-moderate-fighters-on-the-ground-and-some-a6808021.html

[BlackLabel]

*bump*



Should there have been another vote in Parliament before we started bombing the Syrian regime?

[BlackLabel]

The parliamentary motion that Cameron lost in 2013 said “the House of Commons deplores the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime and agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Is there really much of a difference here?