BOMBING Iraq was morally justified, David Cameron told MPs yesterday, stressing there were major differences between UK military action in 2014 and 2003.
To a packed House of Commons, the Prime Minister recognised that the shadow of the last Iraq war hung over the chamber but argued this time there was no question over the legality of the planned action and no question it had the support of a wide coalition of Arab nations as well as Western ones.
He admitted to the specially-recalled house that air-strikes alone would not solve the problem of Islamic State terrorism.
But Mr Cameron made it clear they were an indispensable part of a wider strategy to defeat psychopaths peddling a poisonous corruption of Islam.
As a sombre chamber listened, the PM said he agreed with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's assertion that missiles could kill terrorists but it took good governance to stamp out terrorism.
Ed Miliband, supporting air-strikes, made a similar point and quoted the late Robin Cook's resignation speech on the eve of the Iraq War 11 years ago.
The Labour leader recalled the former Foreign Secretary had told MPs: "Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules."
Mr Miliband said: "This is multilateral action prompted by a legitimate, democratic state and a world order governed by rules, if it is about anything, must be about protecting a democratic state."
But Tory MP John Baron warned military action could be "counter-productive" and claimed there was no clear exit strategy, and Green MP Caroline Lucas said: "Killing extremists does not kill their ideas."
Respect MP George Galloway branded IS a death cult. "It's a gang of terrorist murderers. It's not an army and it's certainly not an army that's going to be destroyed by aerial bombardment," he said.
Angus Robertson for the SNP opposed the motion, saying the action could last many years and there was a failure to have a "strategy or plan to win the peace".
In contrast, Sir Richard Ottaway, Conservative chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, told MPs he supported the Government motion, albeit with "a feeling of depression and trepidation".
The Croydon MP said it was regrettable the action proposed did not extend to Syria as the border had disappeared, creating a "sea of human misery".
Sir Richard added: "We've long encouraged the Arab states to get involved. Now they are and the irony is we are pulling our punches as they do. This is the first time there has been an international coalition in Syria and we should be a part of it."
Former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke also backed the motion but branded the UK's contribution of six Tornadoes to the alliance as "symbolic" and, with the PM nodding in agreement, noted: "We're at the early stages of working out exactly where we're going."
Former Labour Foreign Office minister Peter Hain supported Mr Miliband's caution about extending military action to Syria but added: "The blunt truth is that simply allowing Isil to retreat across an invisible border … which they control, into Syria and regroup is simply no answer."
Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said he was not sure an ideology could be destroyed but said it was best to focus on an "effective doctrine of deterrence and containment".
Conservative MP Liam Fox, the ex-Defence Secretary, insisted the UK could not disengage from the IS threat. "When the United States were bombing [IS] and we were delivering humanitarian aid, they did not differentiate between an American hostage and a British hostage being beheaded. Terrorist ideology respects no borders. There will undoubtedly be a cost of acting on this occasion but the cost of not acting would be infinitely greater."
In the Lords, where peers also debated the Government's motion, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby backed the strikes, saying: "The action proposed today is right," but he cautioned against relying on a short-term solution, arguing a wider effort was needed to turn extremists away from the "evil" of IS.
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 hereComments are closed on this article