David Cameron is preparing to send British Tornados into action over the skies of Syria by the weekend after it appeared highly likely the House of Commons was on the verge of authorising the extension of RAF airstrikes in the Middle East.
In a day of soul-searching, recrimination and often heartfelt speeches, Cameron looked set for a clear overall majority with the help of a reduced backbench Tory rebellion and support from dozens of Labour MPs and the minor parties who agreed Britain had to act militarily against Islamic State.
Opening a debate lasting 10 and a half hours, the prime minister admitted his case for airstrikes was complex, but said the question was whether the UK should go after “the terrorists in their heartlands, from where they are plotting to kill British people” or “sit back and wait for them to attack us”.
However, he was apparently unsettled in bitter opening exchanges when he was repeatedly challenged to apologise for remarks at a private meeting of Tory MPs on Tuesday in which he urged his colleagues not to vote alongside “a bunch of terrorist sympathisers”.
Cameron, aware his partisan remarks had infuriated Labour MPs planning to vote in favour of airstrikes, ceded some ground saying: “There is honour in voting for, there is honour voting against. This is about how we fight terrorism not whether we fight it.”
Jeremy Corbyn seized on Cameron’s remarks, saying he had demeaned his office and needed to make an explicit apology.
The Labour leader struggled in his own speech as he refused under challenge from his own side to say whether he still opposed airstrikes not just in Syria, but in Iraq as well. Throughout his speech, Corbyn was flanked by the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, and his deputy leader, Tom Watson, two supporters of airstrikes.
In a sign of the party’s divisions on the issue, Labour MPs from different sides of the argument mercilessly briefed against one another throughout the day and accused each other of bullying and bogus projections of how the Labour vote would split. Corbyn will be buoyed by the fact that a majority of Labour MPs are likely to vote against airstrikes, including many shadow cabinet members.
With more than 150 MPs wanting to speak and the shadow of the 2003 Iraq invasion hanging over the Commons chamber, Cameron attempted to tackle doubts on all sides over whether he had a credible diplomatic and military strategy that would not make the UK a bigger target for Isis terrorists.
He tried to dispel scepticism over claims from the joint intelligence committee that 70,000 non-extremist forces existed, ready to take on Isis, but was forced to admit there would be a reliance on the patchwork of Free Syrian Army troops in Syria and that not all were in the right place.
He said: “Alongside the 70,000, there are some 20,000 Kurdish fighters with whom we can also work. I am not arguing – this is a crucial point – that all of the 70,000 are somehow ideal partners. However, some left the Syrian army because of Assad’s brutality and clearly they can play a role in the future of Syria.” A further 25,000 Islamist troops would not form part of the coalition, he said.
He argued: “If we do not take action against Daesh [Isis] now, the number of ground forces we can work with will get less and less and less. If we want to end up with a situation where there is the butcher Assad on one side and a stronger Isil on the other side, not acting is one of the things that will bring that about.”
The prime minister said there was a political strategy that would bring about a “transitional government in six months, a new constitution and free and fair elections within 18 months”.
He added: “I would argue that the key elements of a deal are emerging: ceasefires, opposition groups coming together, the regime looking at negotiation, and the key players – America and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran – and key regional players such as Turkey all in the room together. My argument is this: hitting Daesh does not hurt this process; it helps this process, which is the eventual goal.”
Cameron warned that Isis was already posing a threat to the UK. It had inspired the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia and plotted atrocities on the streets of Britain, he said. “Since November last year, our security services have foiled no fewer than seven different plots against our people, so this threat is very real,” he said. “Daesh has been trying to attack us for the past year, as we know from the seven different plots that our security services have foiled.”
Responding, Corbyn said the prime minister had failed to convince “almost anyone” that even if British participation in the air campaign would tip the balance there were “credible ground forces able to take back territory now held by Isil”.
He said: “In fact, it’s quite clear there are no such forces. Last week, the prime minister suggested that a combination of Kurdish militias, the Free Syrian Army would be able to fill the gap.
“He even claimed a 70,000-strong force of moderate FSA fighters were ready to coordinate action against Isil with the Western air campaign. That claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny.”
Kurdish forces were a “distance away” from Isis strongholds, Corbyn said, while most of the FSA worked with a wide range of groups, which “few, if any, would regard as moderate” and operated in parts of the country not close to territory held by Islamic State.
The Labour leader added: “The only ground forces able to take advantage of a successful anti-Isil air campaign are stronger jihadist and salafist groups close to Isil-controlled areas.”
Corbyn was supported by a Labour member of the foreign affairs select committee, Yasmin Qureshi, who claimed she had been told by military officials in the Middle East last week that the true number of moderates was closer to 15,000.
Midway through the debate, three influential former Labour cabinet ministers – Alan Johnson, Margaret Beckett and Yvette Cooper – all came out in favour of strikes. In one of the day’s most memorable interventions, Johnson said: “I wish I had frankly the self-righteous certitude of the finger-jabbing representatives of our new and kinder type of politics, who will no doubt soon be contacting those of us who support this motion, but I believe that Isil, Daesh, has to be confronted and destroyed if we are to properly defend our country and our way of life.”
In an emotional speech, the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, recalled “a seven-year-old lad being lifted from a dinghy on the beach at Lesbos and my Arabic interpreter said to me that lad has just said to his dad, ‘Daddy, are Isil here?’”
Farron continued: “I cannot stand in this house and castigate the prime minister for not taking enough refugees and for Britain not standing tall as it should do in the world and opening its arms to the desperate, like we have done so proudly for many, many decades and throughout our history, if we do not also do everything in our power to eradicate that which is the source of those people fleeing from that terror.”
Dan Jarvis, a former soldier seen as a possible Labour leadership contender, likened Isis to fascists, saying: “When the war cabinet met in 1940, it was the Labour ministers Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood that tipped the balance in favour of resisting nazism. Daesh are the fascists of our time and I believe there is still a dignity in uniting with our allies in common cause against a common enemy in defence of our common humanity and that is what I hope we will do.”
Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, said he could not support military intervention. Issuing a statement, he said: “I do not think the case has been adequately made that extending British airstrikes will either defeat Isil or make us safer here at home.
“A strategy for the defeat of Isil depends crucially on ground troops and a political settlement or the path towards a political settlement. That is because Isil cannot be defeated from the air alone, as even supporters of airstrikes acknowledge, and because Isil’s success depends on the vacuum created from a multi-sided civil war.
“Neither an explanation of who the ground troops will be, nor the political settlement we are seeking in Syria, or how we get there, has been provided by the government. We would be going ahead without an adequate road map or a clear strategy.”
