LONDON
French President Francois Hollande’s declaration that his country is now at war has given fresh impetus to those wanting to roll out Britain’s combat machine.
The U.K. government has made no secret of its ambition to join France, Jordan and the United States in striking Daesh targets in Syria from the air.
On Tuesday David Cameron, the British prime minister, said the case for Britain joining the U.S.-led coalition "had grown stronger". The U.K. already conducts airstrikes against targets in Iraq, most recently dropping a bomb on Daesh fighters near the town of Sinjar on Monday. It also provides logistical support, including air refueling to other countries' aircraft, over Syria.
But its caution in sending aircrafts to directly strike Daesh in Syria demonstrates how restrained the world’s fifth largest military force in spending terms has become in sending its armed forces abroad.
Direct bombing of targets in Syria cannot take place until Britain’s parliament approves the move, much like it did for the Iraqi campaign in September last year. But this is a convention, not law: there is no rule in the British statute books that requires a parliamentary vote before military action begins.
Indeed, British prime ministers who believe their action must be fast or secret can authorize overseas strikes without informing parliament at all.
Cameron did precisely that as recently as August, when unmanned Royal Air Force drones were sent into Syria to kill Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin, two British citizens fighting for Daesh. And yet he has repeatedly said Britain would only join the anti-Daesh coalition if parliament agrees to it.
That is a difficult task 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 the defeat of a vote on military action.
According to Liam Fox, a former defense secretary, this is partly because the memory of the 2003 Iraq war weighs heavily in MPs’ memories.
He told BBC News on Monday: "We seem to have developed this convention, really since the Iraq war, that parliament needs to be consulted before we take military action. I don't believe that's constitutionally correct, I don't believe it's necessary, but it seems to be the convention that we've adopted."
Britain’s decision 12 years ago to join the U.S.-led invasion of the country on the pretext of removing then-leader Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction was endorsed by a vast majority of MPs at the time. But no weapons were found and Iraq descended into violent sectarian conflict.
Added to parliamentarians' wariness of committing Britain to another Middle East conflict is the stance of Jeremy Corbyn, the recently elected leader of the opposition Labour Party.
He has said he opposes military action in Syria because he does not believe it will end the country's civil war.
"Does the bombing change it? Probably not. The idea has to be, surely, a political settlement in Syria, [but that is] very difficult to achieve," he told ITV this weekend.
He added: "One war doesn't necessarily bring about peace, it often can bring yet more conflict and more mayhem and more loss."
Corbyn also confirmed he would not give his party a free vote on the matter, meaning any Labour MP who supports action in Syria would have to oppose orders from the leadership.
David Cameron took a step closer to a vote Tuesday when he announced he would personally respond to a parliamentary report that said it could not yet endorse his Syria plans.
The report, published by the influential Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Nov. 3, said it was "not persuaded by the Government’s attempts to treat ISIL [Daesh] in Syria and the broader Syrian civil war as separate issues, and note that our witnesses called for a more joined-up strategy to tackle closely interlinked crises".
Speaking in parliament Tuesday afternoon, Cameron described the town of Raqqa, Daesh’s center of operations, as the "head of the snake" and said Britain should be doing more to support its allies flying over Syria.
"We face a direct and growing threat to our country and we need to deal with it not just in Iraq but in Syria too," he said.
He accepted airstrikes alone would not defeat Daesh and that a "comprehensive strategy" was needed to explain his plans for Syria's future.
He also dismissed Corbyn's argument that the Iraq war was to blame for the emergence of Daesh, insisting violent extremism had existed "for more than 20 years".
"There's Boko Haram, there's al-Qaeda, there's al-Shabaab, and it is worth making the point, of course, that the first manifestations of this violent Islamist extremism -- not least the Twin Towers attack -- that happened before the invasion of Iraq," he said.
"I do think it's important we don't try to seek excuses for what is a death cult and a death cult that's been killing British citizens for many, many years."
The reality for the British prime minister is that the moral argument boils down to a question of numbers.
Thirty Conservative MPs voted against their own government’s position when parliament last voted on military intervention in Syria in 2013. With a similar rebellion expected next time, Cameron will need to find at least as many MPs from opposition parties who will support him before he tables the motion again.
