Britain says its time it stepped directly into the Syrian crisis with possible joint air strikes.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said that "subcontract its security to other countries" was no longer an option for Britain and it was time to to join air strikes against Islamic State in Syria.
After Western intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya failed to bring stability to the region, a section of Britons are wary of entering into another war in the Middle East. Many also point out to those interventions as the reason behind the rise of militants groups such as Islamic State.
Some members of parliament, who were reluctant to launch further military action in the Middle East, are now ready to support British intervention in Syria to eliminate Isis after the terrorist group claimed responsibility for killing 130 people in Paris.
But for Cameron, it would be difficult to get a parliamentary approval for the air strikes. In 2013, Cameron had lost a vote on air strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces. This time he would need to persuade some wary members of his own Conservative Party and in the opposition Labour Party to back him for the air strikes.
It has been reported that the British Prime Minister has managed to persuade at least two of 30 party "rebels" who voted against him in 2013. However he had yet to answer questions about how the bombing would achieve peace, say other opposition lawmakers.
"We do not have the luxury of being able to wait until the Syrian conflict is resolved before tackling ISIL (Islamic State)," Cameron wrote in a response to the parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. The committee had said a policy to extend air strikes was "incoherent" without a strategy to defeat the militants.
"It is wrong for the United Kingdom to sub-contract its security to other countries, and to expect the aircrews of other nations to carry the burdens and the risks of striking ISIL in Syria to stop terrorism here in Britain," Cameron added.
A new phase for the campaign against Islamic State was around the corner, Cameron said adding that the focus would be on command and control, supply lines and financial support - something that suited Britain's capabilities.
While Cameron said that Britain should respond to requests from allies, including the United States, he assured that he would not put up the issue for voting in the parliament unless there was a majority backing action.
He said he did not want to hand Islamic State a "propaganda coup" by losing a vote.
While confirming that the government had not set any specific timetable for vote in the parliament on the issue, Cameron had said earlier this week that a vote could be pushed for next week.
(Source:www.reuters.com)
British Prime Minister David Cameron said that "subcontract its security to other countries" was no longer an option for Britain and it was time to to join air strikes against Islamic State in Syria.
After Western intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya failed to bring stability to the region, a section of Britons are wary of entering into another war in the Middle East. Many also point out to those interventions as the reason behind the rise of militants groups such as Islamic State.
Some members of parliament, who were reluctant to launch further military action in the Middle East, are now ready to support British intervention in Syria to eliminate Isis after the terrorist group claimed responsibility for killing 130 people in Paris.
But for Cameron, it would be difficult to get a parliamentary approval for the air strikes. In 2013, Cameron had lost a vote on air strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces. This time he would need to persuade some wary members of his own Conservative Party and in the opposition Labour Party to back him for the air strikes.
It has been reported that the British Prime Minister has managed to persuade at least two of 30 party "rebels" who voted against him in 2013. However he had yet to answer questions about how the bombing would achieve peace, say other opposition lawmakers.
"We do not have the luxury of being able to wait until the Syrian conflict is resolved before tackling ISIL (Islamic State)," Cameron wrote in a response to the parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. The committee had said a policy to extend air strikes was "incoherent" without a strategy to defeat the militants.
"It is wrong for the United Kingdom to sub-contract its security to other countries, and to expect the aircrews of other nations to carry the burdens and the risks of striking ISIL in Syria to stop terrorism here in Britain," Cameron added.
A new phase for the campaign against Islamic State was around the corner, Cameron said adding that the focus would be on command and control, supply lines and financial support - something that suited Britain's capabilities.
While Cameron said that Britain should respond to requests from allies, including the United States, he assured that he would not put up the issue for voting in the parliament unless there was a majority backing action.
He said he did not want to hand Islamic State a "propaganda coup" by losing a vote.
While confirming that the government had not set any specific timetable for vote in the parliament on the issue, Cameron had said earlier this week that a vote could be pushed for next week.
(Source:www.reuters.com)