DAVID Cameron has been forced to defend British military interventions amid scepticism over the "growing drumbeat" towards air strikes in Syria.
The Prime Minister insisted the air strikes he ordered in Libya in 2011 on balance had benefited the UK because they had helped oust the dictator Muammar Gaddafi from power.
But SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson highlighted the "total anarchy" and "civil chaos" in the North African nation, which was split between an Islamist-backed government based in Tripoli and an internationally-recognised administration in the east.
Mr Robertson suggested the PM had not learnt the lessons of the Libya intervention as well as Labour-instigated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cautioned him about extending British air strikes against Isis militants to Syria.
Mr Cameron is widely expected to call a Commons vote to authorise action against Isis, also known as Daesh or Isil in the war-ravaged nation; a Cabinet source has indicated he is increasingly confident that at least 50 Labour MPs could back extending RAF strikes from Iraq to Syria.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Robertson noted how more than 450 UK service personnel had died in Afghanistan but sadly the Taliban were back and that the UK had spent 13 times more bombing Libya than in rebuilding the country, which was racked by anarchy.
"The US has just dropped a $500 million programme to support the Syrian opposition, Russia is bombing Syria and the UK has no plan to help Syrian refugees who have made it to Europe. There is no surprise that there is growing scepticism about the drumbeat towards war.
"Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, of Afghanistan, and Libya and he will never repeat them?"
Mr Cameron responded by saying he could not remember a question with so many errors in it.
Noting how Britain was the second largest bilateral donor to Syrian refugee camps in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Turkey, the PM told Mr Robertson: "We've done more than almost any other country in the world to help Syrian refugees but frankly, I don't recognise the picture you paint of Afghanistan; the fact is that we have supported an Afghan national army and police force and an Afghan government that are in control of that country.
"But the final point I'd make to you is it's all very well standing on your high horse and lecturing about the past; would you be happier with an Afghanistan that had a Taliban regime and al Qaida in Afghanistan? Would you be happier with Gaddafi running Libya, would you be happier with that situation?”
He added: “So as I said, the consequences of non-intervention are also worth considering."
Meantime, Labour has indicated it could support the extension of RAF air strikes against Isis to cover Syria as well as Iraq without the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Last month, the party conference voted not to support military action in Syria without the authorisation of the UN.
But Hilary Benn, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, signalled that Labour would "look at the position again" if a security council resolution were vetoed by Russia. He noted how inaction would have "consequences" on the ground for people in Syria.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel