UK opposition divided over Daesh vote

LONDON

By the end of this week, the first British fighter jets could be in the air on their way to strike Daesh targets in Syria.

If the military action begins, it will have come following weeks of often anguished debate among the country’s political parties.

Many, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, believe Britain has a responsibility to join the U.S.-led coalition that is working to eliminate Daesh after its terror attacks in Ankara, Beirut and Paris.

But others, like Shuja Shafi, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, an umbrella body of more than 500 mosques and schools, are not convinced.

"There is no doubt that Daesh, or ISIS as it is sometimes known, is an inhuman and evil entity, opposed by the vast majority of Muslims around the world," he said in a statement Monday morning.

But most British Muslims believe the airstrikes will simply not destroy the group, he said.

He continued: "It will also be another recruiting sergeant for the terrorists and their odious ideology. As more innocent people die from the air strikes, the appeal of Daesh will strengthen. Daesh craves more Western military intervention in the region to corroborate its hateful narrative."

"As such, we would urge MPs to learn the lessons of the past, and not to vote for extending air strikes over Syria," he said.

That vote, which could take place as early as Wednesday, would give Britain the authority to broaden its existing air campaign in Iraq to include Syria.

But it is a difficult task for Cameron because his Conservative Party has only a slim majority of 12 seats in the House of Commons, meaning even a minor rebellion among his colleagues could mean a vote on military action is defeated.

That makes the view of the opposition Labour Party key to the vote.

Its leader Jeremy Corbyn has not disguised his pacifist stance, an opinion shared by the thousands of anti-war demonstrators who gathered in central London on Saturday.

"Think through this whole thing; there is no second plan, there is no effective ground force to back it up," Corbyn told the BBC on Sunday morning.

"We will be relying on groups in the Free Syrian Army apparently, who are hundreds of miles away, whose main interest is fighting [Syrian leader Bashar al-] Assad anyway."

The Labour leader said a bombing campaign over Raqqa, the center of operations for Daesh, could lead to huge civilian casualties.

But his position is at odds with some of other party members, many of whom believe Cameron has made a strong case for British involvement.

Many of the critics are moderate politicians who oppose the left-wing shift under Corbyn, including shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn said David Cameron had made "a convincing case" for the airstrikes.

Labour’s shadow Cabinet -- the party’s main decision-making body -- met Thursday to try and agree on a party position, but was unsuccessful. It is due to meet again Monday afternoon.

The immediate point of contention is over "whipping", the question of whether Corbyn will order the Labour Party’s 231 lawmakers to vote against David Cameron’s plans or whether he will grant his colleagues permission to vote freely.

Diane Abbott, one of Corbyn’s closest allies, told BBC radio Monday morning that she opposed a free vote: "It's a matter for the leader what the whipping will be but we are a party of government, and a party of government has to have a position on matters of peace and war."

"And the problem about a free vote is that it hands victory to Cameron over these airstrikes, it hands victory to him on a plate. I don't think that's what party members want to see," she added.

But whether or not Corbyn permits a free vote, the broader concern will be its implications for the Labour Party and his leadership. Not in recent memory has a British political leader been so widely supported by the party membership and so widely pilloried by his senior colleagues.