History appears not to be on the side of prime ministers making the 'right' decision when it comes to ordering our troops into battle.  And now there's Syria.  To form your own opinion, below is David Cameron's statement to the Commons and – if you click this link – his response to the memorandum of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

Memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee: Prime Minister’s response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2015-16: The Extension of Offensive British Military Operations to Syria.

INTRODUCTION

"Mr Speaker, I said I would respond personally to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Report on extending British military operations to Syria.

I have done so today and copies of my response have been made available to every Member of the House.

The Committee produced a comprehensive report which asked a series of important questions.

I have also listened very carefully to the questions and views expressed by Members on all sides of the House.

And I want to answer all the relevant questions today.

There are different ways of putting them, but they boil down to:

Why?

Why us?

Why now?

Is what we are contemplating legal?

Where are the ground troops to help us achieve our objectives?

What is the strategy that brings together everything we are doing, particularly in Syria?

Is there an end to this conflict and is there a plan for what follows?

Let me deal with each of these questions very directly.

WHY?

First, why?

Mr Speaker, the reason for acting is the very direct threat that ISIL poses to our country and to our way of life.

ISIL have attacked Ankara, Beirut and of course Paris...

...as well as the likely blowing up of a Russian plane with 224 people on board.

They have already taken the lives of British hostages...

...and inspired the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia.

And, crucially, they have repeatedly tried to attack us right here in Britain.

In the last 12 months, our police and Security Services have disrupted no fewer than 7 terrorist plots to attack the UK...

...every one of which was either linked to ISIL or inspired by their propaganda.

So I am in no doubt that it is in our national interest for action to be taken to stop them.

And stopping them means taking action in Syria – because it is Raqqa that is their HQ.

WHY US?

But why us?

Mr Speaker, my first responsibility as Prime Minister – and our first job in this House - is to keep the British people safe.

We have the assets to do that...

....and to significantly extend the capabilities of the international Coalition forces.

That is one reason why members of international Coalition...

...including President Obama and President Hollande...

...have made it clear to me that they want Britain to stand with them in joining air strikes in Syria as well as Iraq.

These are our closest allies – and they want our help.

Partly this is about our capabilities.

As we are showing in Iraq, the RAF can carry out what is called “dynamic targeting”...

...where our pilots can strike the most difficult targets at rapid pace with extraordinary precision...

...and provide vital battle-winning close air support to local forces on the ground.  

We have the Brimstone precision missile system, which enables us to strike accurately with minimal collateral damage – something that even the Americans do not have.

The RAPTOR pod on our Tornado aircraft has no rival…

…currently gathering 60% of the Coalition’s entire tactical reconnaissance in Iraq, while also being equipped for strikes.

In addition, our REAPER drones are providing up to 30 per cent of intelligence in Syria but are not currently able to use their low collateral high precision hellfire missiles.

And we also have the proven ability to sustain our operations – not just for weeks, but if necessary for months into the future.

Mr Speaker, of course we have these capabilities.

But the most important answer to the question of “why us” is even more fundamental.

And it's this.

We shouldn’t be content with outsourcing our security to our allies.

If we believe that action can help protect us, then - with our allies – we should be part of that action...

...not standing aside from it.

And from this moral point comes a fundamental question.

If we won’t act now when our friend and ally France has been struck in this way...

...then our allies in the world can be forgiven for asking...

...if not now, when?

WHY NOW?

And that leads to the next question. Why now?

The first answer to that is, of course, because of the grave danger that ISIL poses to our security...

...a danger that has clearly intensified in recent weeks.

But there are additional reasons why action now is so important.

Look at what has changed.

Not just the attack in Paris. But the world has come together and agreed a UN Security Council Resolution.

And there is a real political process underway.

This could lead to a new government in Syria with whom we can work to defeat ISIL for good.

But as I explained to the House yesterday, we can’t wait for that to be complete before we begin acting to degrade ISIL and reducing their capability to attack us.

Let’s be clear about the military objectives that we are pursuing.

Yes we want to defeat the terrorists, by dismantling their networks, stopping their funding targeting their training camps and taking out those plotting terrorist attacks against the UK.

But there is a broader objective.

For as long as ISIL can pedal the myth of a so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria...

...it will be a rallying call for Islamist extremists all around the world.

Just as we have reduced the scale and size of that so-called caliphate in Iraq – pushing it out of Iraq - so we need to do the same thing in Syria.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, another reason for action now, is that the success in Iraq in squeezing the so-called caliphate is put at risk by our failure to act in Syria.

This border is not recognised by ISIL and we seriously hamper our efforts if we stop acting when we reach the Syrian border.

So when we come to the question “why now”, we have to ask ourselves whether the risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action.

Every day we fail to act is a day when ISIL can grow stronger and more plots can be undertaken.

Mr Speaker, that’s why all the advice I have received – the military advice, the diplomatic advice and the security advice – all says yes, the risks of inaction are greater.

Some have asked specifically whether taking action could make the UK more of a target for ISIL attacks.

So let me tell the House that the judgement of the Director General of the Security Service...

...and the Chairman of Joint Intelligence Committee...

...is that the UK is already in the top tier of countries on ISIL’s target list.

So I am clear that the only way to deal with that reality is to address the threat we face.

And to do so now.

IS IT LEGAL?

Mr Speaker, let me turn to the question of legality.

It is a long-standing constitutional convention that we don’t publish our formal legal advice.

But the document I have published today shows in some detail the clear legal basis for military action against ISIL in Syria.  

It is founded on the right of self-defence as recognised in Article 51 of the UN Charter.  

The right to self‑defence may be exercised individually where it is necessary to the UK’s own defence...

...and collectively in the defence of our friends and allies.  

Mr Speaker, the main basis of the Global Coalition’s actions against ISIL in Syria is the collective self-defence of Iraq.

There is a solid basis of evidence on which to conclude, firstly, that there is a direct link between the presence and activities of ISIL in Syria and their ongoing attack on Iraq...

....and, secondly, that the Assad regime is unwilling and/or unable to take action necessary to prevent ISIL’s continuing attack on Iraq – or indeed on us.

It is also clear that ISIL’s campaign against the UK and our allies has reached the level of an “armed attack” such that force may lawfully be used in self-defence to prevent further atrocities being committed by ISIL.

And this is further underscored by the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2249.

Let’s be clear about what this resolution means and what it says.

The whole world came together – including all five members of the Security Council – to agree this resolution unanimously.

The resolution states that ISIL “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security.”

And it calls for Member States to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL...

...and to “eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.”

WHERE ARE THE GROUND FORCES THAT WILL ASSIST US?

Turning to the question of which ground forces will assist us.

In Iraq the answer is clear. We have the Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga.

In Syria the situation is more complex.

But as the report I am publishing shows, we believe there are around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army – who do not belong to extremist groups...

...and with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on ISIL.

In addition there are the Kurdish armed groups who have also shown themselves capable of both taking territory, holding it and administering it...

…and crucially relieving the suffering that the civilian population had endured under ISIL control.

The Syrian Kurds have successfully defended Kurdish areas in Northern Syria and retaken territory around the city of Kobane.

Moderate armed Sunni Arabs have proved capable of defending territory north of Aleppo…

…and stopped ISIL’s attempts to capture the main humanitarian border crossing with Turkey and sweep into Idlib province.

In the south, the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army has consolidated its control over significant areas and has worked to prevent terrorists from operating.

These people, they are ground troops. They need our help. When they get it, they succeed. So we should do more to help from the air.

But those who ask questions about ground troops are right to do so.

The full answer can’t be achieved until there is a new Syrian government that represents all the Syrian people – not just Sunni, Shia and Alawite, but Christian, Druze and others.

And it is this new government who will be the natural partners for our forces in defeating ISIL for good.

Mr Speaker, we can’t defeat ISIL simply from the air or purely with military action alone.

It requires a full political settlement.

But the question is: can we wait for that settlement before we take action?

Again, my answer is no.

PART OF AN OVERALL STRATEGY?

On the question about whether this is part of an overall strategy – the answer is yes.

Our approach has four pillars.

First, our counter-extremism strategy means we have a comprehensive plan to prevent and foil plots at home and also to address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat we face.

Second, our support for the diplomatic and political process.

Let’s be clear about this process.  

Many in this House rightly said how vital it is to have all the key regional players around the table – including Iran and Russia.

And we are now seeing Iran and Saudi Arabia sitting down around the same table with Russia, America, France, Turkey and Britain...

...and working towards the transition to a new government in Syria.

The third pillar is the military action I am describing to degrade ISIL and reduce the threat they pose.

It is working in Iraq. And I believe it can work in Syria.

And the fourth pillar is immediate humanitarian support and longer-term stabilisation.

Of course the House has heard many times that Britain has so far given over £1.1 billion – by far the largest commitment of any European country, and second only to the United States.

This is helping to reduce the need for Syrians to attempt the perilous journey to Europe...

...and the donor conference I am hosting in February together with the Germany, Kuwait, Norway and the UN will help further.

But the House is rightly also asking more questions about whether there will be a proper post conflict reconstruction effort to support a new Syrian government when it emerges.

Britain’s answer is yes.

And I can tell the House that Britain would be prepared to contribute at least another £1 billion for this task.

So all these elements – counter-terrorism, political and diplomatic, military and humanitarian need to happen together to achieve a long-term solution in Syria.

We know that peace is a process not an event.

And I am clear that it can’t be achieved through a military assault on ISIL alone.

It also requires the removal of Assad through a political transition.

But I am also clear about the sequencing that needs to take place.

Mr Speaker, this is an ISIL first strategy.

END POINT AND PROCESS TO FOLLOW

What of the end goal?

So Mr Speaker, the initial objective is to damage ISIL and reduce its capability to do us harm.

And I believe that this can lead to its eradication.

No-one predicted their rise and we should not accept that it’s somehow impossible to bring them to an end.

They are not what the people of Iraq and Syria want.

They don’t represent the true religion of Islam.

And they are losing ground in Iraq, following loses in Sinjar and Baji.

We are not naïve to the complexity of the task.

It will require patience and persistence.

And our work won’t be complete until we have reached our end goal...

...which is having governments in both Iraq and Syria which can command the confidence of all their peoples.

And in Syria, that ultimately means a government without Assad.

As Ban Ki Moon has said: “A missile can kill a terrorist; but only good governance can kill terrorism.”

This applies so clearly to both Iraq and Syria.

Mr Speaker, as we discuss all these things, people also want to know that we have learnt the lessons of previous conflicts.

Whatever anyone thought of the Iraq War...

...terrible mistakes were made in the aftermath in dismantling the state and the institutions of that country.

And we must never make those mistakes again.

The political process in Syria will deliver new leadership and it is that transition we must support.

We are not in the business of dismantling the Syrian state, or its institutions.

In Libya, the State and its institutions had been hollowed out after 40 years of dictatorship.

When the dictatorship went, the institutions rapidly collapsed.

But the big difference between Libya and Syria is that in Syria this time, we have firm international commitment from all the backers of a future Syrian Government around the table at the Vienna talks.

The commitment is clear: to preserve and develop the State in Syria and allow a new representative government to govern for all its people.

OTHER QUESTIONS

So Mr Speaker, I have attempted to answer the main questions – why, why now, why us, is it legal, where are the ground forces, is there a strategy and what is the end point and the plan for reconstruction.

But I know this is a highly complex situation and I know Members on all sides will have other questions which I look forward to answering this morning.

One will be about the confused and confusing situation in Syria with regard to Russia’s intervention.

Mr Speaker, let me reassure the House that the American-led combined air operations centre has a memorandum of understanding with the Russians.

This enables daily contact and pragmatic military planning to ensure the safety of all Coalition forces. And this would include our brave RAF pilots.

Another question will be about whether we are taking sides in a Sunni vs Shia conflict.

This is simply not the case.

Yes ISIL is a predominantly Sunni organisation – but it is killing Shia and Sunnis alike.

Our vision for the future of Syria – as with Iraq – is not a sectarian entity, but one governed in the interests of all its people.

So we wholeheartedly welcome the presence of States with both Sunni and Shia majorities at the Vienna talks and their support for international action both against ISIL and towards a diplomatic solution in Syria.

The House will also want to know what we are doing about the financing of ISIL.

The document sets this out – and it includes striking infrastructure targets from the air...

...intercepting smugglers, sealing borders...

...and enforcing sanctions to stop people trading with ISIL.

But ultimately ISIL is able to generate income through its control of territory.

So while we are working with international partners to squeeze the finances wherever we can...

...it is the rolling back of ISIL’s territory which will ultimately cut off its finances.

Two of the most complex questions in an undoubtedly complex situation are these.

First, will acting against ISIL in Syria help to bring about transition.

The answer is yes – not least because there can’t be genuine transition without maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria.

ISIL deny this integrity.

Crucially, destroying ISIL helps the moderate forces – and these moderate forces will be crucial to Syria’s future.

Second, does our view that Assad must go help in the fight against ISIL. Or as some claim, does this confuse the picture.

The expert advice I have could not be more clear: we will not beat ISIL if we waiver in our view that ultimately Assad must go.

We cannot win over majority Sunni opinion – which is vital for the long-term stability of Syria - if we suddenly change our position.

CONCLUSION

Mr Speaker, in the end it comes back to the one main question – should we take action?

All those who say that ultimately we need a diplomatic solution and a transition to a new government in Syria are right.

Working with a new representative government is the way to eradicate ISIL in Syria in the long-term.

But can we wait for that to happen before we take military action?

I say we can’t.

Mr Speaker, let me be clear.

There will not be a vote in this House unless there is a clear majority for action...

...because we will not hand a publicity coup to ISIL.

Mr Speaker, I am clear that any motion we bring before this House will explicitly recognise that military action is not the whole answer.

Proud as I am of our incredible servicemen and women - I will not pretend or overstate the significance of our potential contribution.

I will not understate the complexity of this issue...

...nor the risks that are inevitably involved in any military action.

But Mr Speaker, we do face a fundamental threat to our security.

We can’t wait for a political transition, we have hit these terrorists in their heartlands now.

And we must not shirk our responsibility for security – or hand it to others.

Mr Speaker, throughout our history, the United Kingdom has stood up to defend our values and our way of life.

We can – and must – do so again.

And I commend this Statement to the House."

▲