This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/britain-moves-toward-airstrikes-against-islamic-state/2014/09/24/f633e970-85e8-4904-a949-adf2bd15f49e_story.html?wprss=rss_world

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Britain moves toward airstrikes against Islamic State Britain moves toward airstrikes against Islamic State
(about 1 hour later)
LONDON — After weeks of largely staying on the sidelines amid a U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State fighters, Britain on Wednesday appeared to be moving toward a more direct military intervention.LONDON — After weeks of largely staying on the sidelines amid a U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State fighters, Britain on Wednesday appeared to be moving toward a more direct military intervention.
Amid multiple reports in the British press that parliament would be recalled on Friday to debate the authorization of airstrikes, a Downing Street spokeswoman said there were no plans to do so “at the moment.” Amid multiple reports in the British press that Parliament would be recalled on Friday to debate the authorization of airstrikes, a Downing Street spokeswoman said there were no plans to do so “at the moment.”
But in remarks to NBC News, British Prime Minister David Cameron said the fight against Islamic State was one “you cannot opt out of.”But in remarks to NBC News, British Prime Minister David Cameron said the fight against Islamic State was one “you cannot opt out of.”
“It has oil. It has money. It has territory. It has weapons. And there’s no doubt in my mind it has already undertaken and is planning further plots in Europe and elsewhere,” Cameron said.“It has oil. It has money. It has territory. It has weapons. And there’s no doubt in my mind it has already undertaken and is planning further plots in Europe and elsewhere,” Cameron said.
Meanwhile, the leader of the Labor opposition, Ed Miliband, told the BBC he was “open to the possibility" of supporting British airstrikes in Iraq — while indicating that his party would require a United Nation resolution before backing an expansion of attacks to Syria. Meanwhile, the leader of the Labor opposition, Ed Miliband, told the BBC he was “open to the possibility” of supporting British airstrikes in Iraq — while indicating that his party would require a United Nations resolution before backing an expansion of attacks to Syria.
The British decision to hold back from airstrikes, at least until now, is unusual for a country that prides itself on being Washington’s closest ally, and has repeatedly joined with the United States in military operations around the globe. The British decision to hold back from airstrikes, at least until now, is unusual for a country that prides itself on being Washington’s closest ally and that has repeatedly joined the United States in military operations around the globe.
But the delay has far more to do with domestic politics than it does with any gap in the “special relationship,” analysts say.But the delay has far more to do with domestic politics than it does with any gap in the “special relationship,” analysts say.
Britain has already supplied the United States with intelligence and surveillance support, and has provided arms to Kurdish forces doing battle with Islamic State militants. Cameron, meanwhile, has been publicly supportive of the U.S.-led strikes. Britain has already supplied the United States with intelligence and surveillance support and has provided arms to Kurdish forces doing battle with Islamic State militants. Cameron, meanwhile, has been publicly supportive of the U.S.-led strikes.
But the prime minister has been reluctant to seek parliament’s approval for more direct British military intervention until he knew he had the votes — a lesson learned last year, when the House of Commons defeated a proposal for airstrikes against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But the prime minister has been reluctant to seek Parliament’s approval for more direct British military intervention until he knew he had the votes — a lesson learned last year, when the House of Commons defeated a proposal for airstrikes against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“He doesn’t want a repeat of what he did last year, which was to panic, recall parliament and fail,” said Patricia Lewis, head of international security for the London-based think tank Chatham House. “He doesn’t want a repeat of what he did last year, which was to panic, recall Parliament and fail,” said Patricia Lewis, head of international security for the London-based think tank Chatham House.
Now, however, the stars appear to be aligning for parliamentary support.Now, however, the stars appear to be aligning for parliamentary support.
When U.S. airstrikes in Iraq began last month, the British public was divided over whether their nation should join in. But in recent weeks, following the release of Islamic State videos showing the beheading of two American journalists and a British aid worker, public opinion has swung strongly in favor of a more direct British role in combating the group. When U.S. airstrikes in Iraq began last month, the British public was divided over whether their nation should participate. But in recent weeks, following the release of Islamic State videos showing the beheading of two American journalists and a British aid worker, public opinion has swung strongly in favor of a more direct British role in combating the group.
Participation in the latest round of airstrikes by five Arab countries — Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — has also contributed to rising support here for the campaign.Participation in the latest round of airstrikes by five Arab countries — Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — has also contributed to rising support here for the campaign.
Still, it remains unclear whether parliament will authorize attacks in Syria — where officials have said airstrikes without their consent are unwelcome — or whether the authorization will be limited to Iraq, where the government has pleaded for foreign help. Still, it remains unclear whether Parliament will authorize attacks in Syria — whose government has denounced airstrikes without its consent — or whether the authorization will be limited to Iraq, where the government has pleaded for foreign help.
“There will be great support for airstrikes in Iraq,” Lewis said. “The division will be over Syria.”“There will be great support for airstrikes in Iraq,” Lewis said. “The division will be over Syria.”
The French have faced a similar quandary. Unlike Britain, France has already carried out airstrikes against Islamic State militants, striking targets in Iraq last week. But the French have refrained from attacking targets in Syria for fear of appearing to support Assad by helping to eliminate his enemies.The French have faced a similar quandary. Unlike Britain, France has already carried out airstrikes against Islamic State militants, striking targets in Iraq last week. But the French have refrained from attacking targets in Syria for fear of appearing to support Assad by helping to eliminate his enemies.
But Dominique Moisi, a founder of the French Institute of International Relations, said that French abstention from the Syria campaign may only be "a temporary moment," and that there is an "interventionist mood" in France. But Dominique Moisi, a founder of the French Institute of International Relations, said that French abstention from the Syria campaign may only be “a temporary moment” and that there is an “interventionist mood” in France.
“If action continues in Syria, it would be very difficult for the French not to join that,” he said. “So, [French leaders] will explain that given the inhumanity of the Islamic State fighters, there is a need to tackle them, wherever is needed, and of course it's as much needed in Syria as it is in Iraq.” “If action continues in Syria, it would be very difficult for the French not to join that,” he said. “So, [French leaders] will explain that given the inhumanity of the Islamic State fighters, there is a need to tackle them, wherever is needed, and of course it’s as much needed in Syria as it is in Iraq.”
Moisi said because France didn’t take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was easier to convince the French to sign up for airstrikes today than it is to convince the British, who were on the front lines of that campaign along with the Americans. Moisi said because France did not take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was easier to persuade the French to sign up for airstrikes today than it is to convince the British, who were on the front lines of that campaign along with the Americans.
“We know how to distinguish a right intervention from a wrong one, a war of necessity from a war of choice — at least that is the mood,” he said.“We know how to distinguish a right intervention from a wrong one, a war of necessity from a war of choice — at least that is the mood,” he said.
French and British airstrikes are more important for their symbolism than they are for any tactical military reason. President Obama has been eager to present the American-led campaign as a collective effort. European support is seen as particularly important at a time when the continent is feeling threatened by the prospect of young Europeans traveling to the Middle East to fight, and then returning to carry out terrorist attacks.French and British airstrikes are more important for their symbolism than they are for any tactical military reason. President Obama has been eager to present the American-led campaign as a collective effort. European support is seen as particularly important at a time when the continent is feeling threatened by the prospect of young Europeans traveling to the Middle East to fight, and then returning to carry out terrorist attacks.
“These people want to kill us,” Cameron told NBC. “They’ve got us in their sights and we have to put together this coalition . . . to make sure that we ultimately destroy this evil organization.” “These people want to kill us,” Cameron told NBC. “They’ve got us in their sights, and we have to put together this coalition . . . to make sure that we ultimately destroy this evil organization.”