Forum

Latest News
  • Will Croft elected Leader of the Conservative party
  • South Pacific nations agree new alliance to counter China
  • Budget 2016: Chancellor faces global slowdown
  • Ministers embarrassed by ‘Legion’ leak
{"effect":"fade","fontstyle":"normal","autoplay":"true","timer":4000}

GM-3: Intervention against ISIL in Iraq and Syria  

Page 1 / 3
  RSS

Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
10/07/2019 3:54 pm  

Mr Speaker, I beg leave to introduce the following motion:

That this House condemns the barbaric acts of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq and Syria, including likely acts of genocide; recognises the clear threat to Iraqi sovereignty and security, as well as international security via operations in multiple countries posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; acknowledges the building of a transatlantic coalition to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; further acknowledges that Iraq continues to request aid from coalition forces in combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; declares that there is no sovereign government in Syria capable of requesting aid, while noting that forces combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have requested support; supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with allies, in utilising air strikes to combat the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq and Syria, providing training, aerial coverage, logistical, and reconnaissance assistance to the Iraqi Security Forces, the Peshmerga, Syrian Democratic Forces, and other supporting forces identified by Her Majesty’s Government, in consultation with Coalition allies; further declares that the end goal of such a campaign is nothing less than the lasting defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

Mr Speaker:

Over the past year the Royal Air Force, along with our allies the United States and France, led a campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - ISIL or Daesh - in Iraq. It is my duty to inform the House that the aerial campaign that we embarked in, while preventing the fall of Baghdad and slowing the ISIL advance in Iraq, has not succeeded in containing the threat of ISIL. This is most disheartening news. And this failure was not the fault of British airmen flying sorties over Iraq. The air mission was fit for purpose when originally proposed, but ISIL has proven to be more resilient and deadly than anticipated. We must accept the changing realities, which I shall outline, and revitalise the international coalition fighting ISIL.

First, Mr Speaker, there is the reality on the ground in Iraq, where the Iraqi Security Forces remain ill-equipped and ill-prepared to combat ISIL. When ISIL forces moved towards Ramadi, the ISF wasn’t driven out of Ramadi - they packed their bags and drove out, in the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the United States - surrendering the city to ISIL. No amount of air support could have prevented this occurrence. Second, Mr Speaker, there is the reality that ISIL is a transnational group, operating in both Iraq and Syria. This, of course, means that for a military solution to be successful we must strike at ISIL at the heart of its alleged caliphate. Finally, Mr Speaker - and this is in direct relation to the fact that ISIL operations in two nations - we must work to sever the economic link between Iraqi oil and the Syrian Civil War that fuels ISIL’s growth. In utilising the vacuum of the Syrian Civil War, ISIL is able to relatively freely move oil from Iraq into Syria and then onto the black market. This economic link will not be severed unless the ability of ISIL to operate freely across the border between Iraq and Syria is eliminated.

In the past days, Mr Speaker, we have worked extremely quickly to redefine the allied mission against ISIL and align additional nations in a coalition against terrorist forces in the region. At a meeting at Downing Street attended by the defence ministers of the United States, France, Germany, Canada, and Australia a framework for action was recently established - a framework that I will delve more into shortly. Second, rapid diplomatic efforts secured support from our allies in Turkey and Jordan, partners in the Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, our European allies, namely Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, and Poland. We anticipate commitments of additional support from nations as diverse as Morocco, Norway, South Korea, and Japan in the coming days.

Mr Speaker, the strategy we have outlined will rely on three critical operations by the allies: air support, training, and reconnaissance and support. The first of these will represent an expansion of our air campaign in Iraq to cover Syria and help prevent ISIL forward motion against critical friends in the region, such as the Syrian Democratic Forces. The second will involve training, focused on the Syrian Democratic Forces, Peshmerga, and Iraqi Security Forces, strengthening command structures with units and providing training in tactics that can be used to combat ISIL. The third, Mr Speaker, will involve providing aerial reconnaissance and logistical and communications support to the ISF and SDF, where possible, helping them to best complete their mission and operating as a mobile force that is capable of defeating ISIL.

Mr Speaker, what we are proposing is not a strategy that would see Britain engaging in a direct fight with ISIL. We would operate purely in an advisory and support capacity on the ground. We, along with all other Western powers, initially sought to avoid putting boots on the ground. However, the unchecked advance of ISIL forces towards Baghdad, as well as their expansion in Syria, poses an existential threat to the democratically elected Iraqi government than they did even a year ago, shortly after they had taken Mosul. Moreover, their actions in Syria are fueling further chaos in a nation that is already in the midst of civil war. Finally, their ability to finance their operations via the illegal sale of contraband oil allows them to expand their operations around the world, including in Europe, North Africa, and Afghanistan. This is a grave, transnational threat to our security.

However, Mr Speaker, we are ready to act. In addition to our forces already deployed to the Middle East, new Royal Air Force squadrons are prepared for action from Akrotiri and Bahrain. They will be augmented by American, French, and Australian aircraft. We will deploy training forces in short course, as they have already been assigned to prepare for rapid deployment to Iraq. This is a united effort. This is the effort of numerous allies combining to fight a deadly and dangerous foe. The pieces are set. However, the approval of this House is required to initiate this action. Our allies depend on us to lead the way. Britain assembled this coalition and now we must demonstrate that we are willing to commit to it.

Mr Speaker, the allies are united in this endeavour. We established that the goal of this campaign will be nothing less than a lasting defeat of Daesh in the Middle East. We will destroy their supply networks, their strongholds, their leadership. We cannot commit to half measures - we must intensify our efforts. This is a significant engagement - but it is an engagement that we must win, Mr Speaker. The forces that seek to destroy not only our structures, but our very way of life gain strength. Now is the time to combat them.

I call upon all members of this House to join me in supporting this motion. We face a grave threat in Syria and Iraq. We will do what we must to confront it.

Mr Speaker, I commend this motion to the House.

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


Quote
Meredith Hansen-Charles
(@mhc)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 106
10/07/2019 4:25 pm  

Mr Speaker, 

Time will be allocated for debate 

Meredith Hansen-Charles
Cambridge
Secretary of State for Education
Minister for Women and Equalities

"Meredith Hansen-Charles...is a deity" - Kandler/The Times


ReplyQuote
Richard
(@richard)
Member A-team
Joined: 6 months ago
Posts: 159
10/07/2019 10:01 pm  

Order! Debate!

Rick the Admin - The Resident Psephologist
Admin for Cabinet, PM's Office, DPM's Office, Defence, Energy, Regions, Environment, Transport, Communities, Elections, and Advisor to Labour and the Lib Dems


ReplyQuote
Eleanor Nerina
(@eleanor-nerina)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 71
10/07/2019 10:13 pm  

Mr Speaker,

I rise to offer my wholehearted support to this motion and to the Prime Minister’s proposed course of action.

I would like to do so, Mr Speaker, for two reasons. First, and which I will address most thoroughly, because I believe it is vital for our national security. Second, because it is the just and moral thing for the United Kingdom to do.

There are those, Mr Speaker, many of them I admit on this side of the House but also on the other, that would say that what happens in Iraq and in Syria is no concern of ours in the United Kingdom. It is not hard to see why. For many hundreds of years we have had the comfort of an island nation, the security of a sea and a navy between us those that might do us harm. There is still truth to that, and still a psychological resonance.

Unfortunately, the ideology of hatred preached by Daesh knows no national boundaries nor can any body of water or naval force contain it. The existence of Daesh, of this fascistic so-called Islamic State, does two things. First, It provides a breeding ground for extremism and terrorism that, whether we like it or not, could come and challenge us in person whether in the United Kingdom, our citizens and peoples abroad, or the peoples of our allies and Commonwealth. Whether in person, or through their illicit financing of terrorist organisations, Daesh already has a reach in the Middle East and beyond that threatens us and our allies. God forbid, Mr Speaker, that Daesh were to succeed in its aim and establish a true islamist caliphate with all the power and resources of a state that could be deployed in their single sinister purpose: terror and violence against a civilised way of life.

Second and most of all, Mr Speaker, Daesh also represents a new paradigm in terrorism, that of a sophisticated propoganda machine making full use of the internet and its darkest reaches. Long before their physical resources threaten us, their propaganda can reach us in the blink of an eye, causing fear, yes, but like any infection their infectious ideas can spread, even in the United Kingdom and its allies. The overwhelming majority of our people may be immune, and will do everything in their power to fight it when they see it. But the best way to protect ourselves is to take out the infection at its root: exorcise it clearly and visibly, and deal a decisive blow against their hateful ideology. That means dealing a decisive blow against Daesh: both their operational capabilities, but a decisive blow and victory for us and against them. And it is exactly for that reason that it is so crucial Britain plays its part in this action, not as a passenger in the world’s fight against this threat but as leading champion of it.

But, Mr Speaker, even if this were not true, we have a moral obligation. Daesh are not “just some terrorist group”. They are not a state, as they claim to be. They are a fascistic mafia committed to nothing other than an orgy of violence in a warped interpretation of a religion dear in the hearts of so many of our people. My mother came from a Muslim background, and it causes me great personal pain to see the proud beauty of Islam tarred by Daesh’s incidental association of their ideology with a religion that wants nothing to do with it.

Daesh are perpetrating this orgy of violence and terror against millions of people who sought nothing but peace and freedom, and, Mr Speaker, peoples and states that Britain and France have historically championed and at times been mandated to protect. And while it is very true to say that we bear no legal obligation to the people of Syria or Iraq, and I do not accept that we bear responsibility for the rise of Daesh, I do believe it is true that we have a moral duty, borne both out of common humanity and from historic ties of brotherhood and support. 

I believe this is relevant most of all to my friends and colleagues on this side of the House, who represent across two parties the best traditions in this country of internationalism, social justice for the world, and freedom and peace for its people. Those ideals have long guided us, and have of course challenged us. Sometimes, the cause of peace and freedom forces us to take action to protect it that may seem contradictory, or which we find it hard to personally contenance. And yet it is the strength of those convictions that carried through the resolve of Arthur Greenwood, or of David Lloyd George, precisely at the times when it would have been most expedient to take the easier path. I have examined my own conscience on these matters, Mr Speaker, and determined that it is so clearly our moral duty to the world and our people to take this action; and it is so clearly in our own national interest to do so; that there is no choice tonight but to support the Prime Minister’s motion and start to put an end to the vile, hateful stain on our world that is Daesh.

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department
Labour MP for Brent North (2005 - )


ReplyQuote
William Croft
(@william-croft)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 260
11/07/2019 4:14 pm  

Mr. Speaker, 

Allow me to first thank the Prime Minister for coming before the Commons and presenting her proposed plan to this body. It is critical that the Government of the day consult the House of Commons on matters of military intervention before announcing them to the press. I am pleased to see the Prime Minister breaking with the traditions of her predecessors who chose to do the opposite, and I am genuinely thankful for it. 

As I laid out in the Chatham House speech, the Conservative Party adamantly believes that The United Kingdom must play a leading role in the irradiation of ISIL from the Middle East, and the elimination of the threat they present to the British people. We have supported the Government in the past when they proposed launching airstrikes against the terrorist organization, and over the last few months have advocate for aggressively ramping up our offensive against the group. 

It is the Opposition's belief that ISIL's continued existence presents an existential threat to Britain, both because of their stated intention to harm our people and because of the harm that will be done if they're permitted to further destabilize the Middle East. As a result, it is our position that a comprehensive, multinational strategy employing both military and aid-based tactics to defeat ISIL is absolutely necessary. 

Given the recent news of the terrorist attack that took place aboard the Norwegian Escape, the necessity of moving forward with an aggressive assault against ISIL is now more important than ever. Now is not the time for political point scoring, or arguing over who gets credit for what. Rather, this is a time for national unity. A time when we come together as Britons to stand up for our country, do right by our country, and commit to doing everything necessary to defending our country. 

In that vein, I believe I speak for the whole of the Opposition when I say we will support the Government's plan as we have in the past. And I would like to speak to every member of this House when I say that all of us, regardless of political affiliation, must support every effort to wipe ISIL from the face of the earth. N0 terrorist organization that dares to threaten our people and our way of life may be permitted to go unchecked, and I believe the Prime Minister's proposals are the first necessary step in ensuring ISIL and all of Britain's enemies know the fate that awaits them if they dare threaten our country. 

With that said being said, I would be remiss if I did not enquire about the potential cost of British life as a result of the execution of this plan. While the Prime Minister does not plan on committing ground troops to the conflict, British soldiers will be deployed to Iraq in an advisory role to assist their military with training activities. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: what precautions are being taken to protect those soldiers, why did the Government deem it necessary to send soldiers to participate in an advisory role, and which other allied nations are doing the same? 

I thank the Prime Minister in advance for providing answers to these questions, and again commit the Opposition's full support in working alongside the Government to achieve the national goal of destroying this terrorist organization once and for all. 

William Croft
Member of Parliament for Bracknell
Shadow Foreign Secretary
Chairman of the Conservative Party
Chief Whip of the Conservative party


ReplyQuote
Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
11/07/2019 4:55 pm  

Mr Speaker,

I thank the Rt Hon Member for Bracknell for his support on this motion.

Regarding his questions, any British forces deployed within the territory of Iraq, which will include units of the British Army and Royal Marines assigned to training and logistics support duties, as well as units of the Royal Air Force operating from Iraqi airbases, will be based at bases that are hardened against attack per standard counterterrorism and counterinsurgency protocols. Second, British forces will not be deployed to front lines. However, in the unlikely event that British soldiers come into direct contact with the enemy, they shall of course have every authorisation to defend themselves and their position - defending the position being at the discretion of the commanders on the ground. Moreover, commanders will apply standard counterterrorism and counterinsurgency protocols to British troop movements, such that soldiers are in a state of readiness to respond to hostile action.

On the matter of sending soldiers in an advisory role, our review of the current ground situation revealed several facts. First, while there are several Iraqi units that are acting admirably in the fight against ISIL, others are not and require training and reorganisation. A part of this is the nature of the Iraqi Security Forces. On the front lines, the fight against ISIL is taking the shape of a conventional war and not a counterterrorist or counterinsurgency operation. Counterterrorist or counterinsurgency operations are primarily what the Iraqi Defence Forces were trained to conduct - thus the fighting on the front lines represents a new style of war. Additionally, the abandonment of Ramadi by the IDF without fighting revealed a need to review and reform command and control structures on the ground. This will be the primary mission of coalition ground forces.

Regarding allied nations, the principle six nations that met at Downing Street - the UK, US, France, Germany, Australia, and Canada - are committed to sending forces that will be assigned to ground duties. Additional support may come from other allied nations. Details on such commitments will be released following a forthcoming ministerial meeting. The House shall be duly informed on the matter.

Again, I must emphasise that the allied nations are united behind the goals of this mission. It is a broad mission that will involve aerial bombing, tactical ground support, humanitarian and military aid. All members of the coalition are agreed on these tasks and will contribute in the manner it is decided that they can best contribute. We are fighting together, as one coalition, to defeat a common enemy. And defeat them we shall.

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


ReplyQuote
William Croft
(@william-croft)
Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 260
11/07/2019 7:34 pm  

Mr. Speaker,

I thank the Prime Minister for her very thorough response. 

Based on the information provided, Mr. Speaker, I do have an additional follow up question. I'm curious if the Government has determined the number of soldiers who will be sent to Iraq to take up this advisory role? And will they come from battalions already deployed in the region, or will they be coming from bases located elsewhere? 

William Croft
Member of Parliament for Bracknell
Shadow Foreign Secretary
Chairman of the Conservative Party
Chief Whip of the Conservative party


ReplyQuote
Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
11/07/2019 9:11 pm  

Mr Speaker,

The British contingent is currently set at 800-1000 soldiers. This number may change based on evolving needs on the ground as the operation continues. As to the units deployed, we currently have no ground forces deployed in the area, so all will be coming from bases elsewhere. The government will defer to the judgment of the Defence Staff in moving units into the area - namely which units are most fit for purpose regarding the mission and which units are most prepared for embarking. Orders have been provided for some units to be on high readiness for imminent deployment.*

Regarding other forces, we have additionally increased Royal Air Force presence at RAF Akrotiri and at allied bases in Bahrain for the initiation of operations. Moreover, as task force is being deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to support allied carrier strike group operations in the region.

*(OOC Note: The order has been given to have units ready to go - the units to be deployed however are not listed).

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


ReplyQuote
Kandler
(@kandler)
Member A-team
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 98
11/07/2019 10:18 pm  

Mr Speaker, sir,

There are times in political life where it is more important to stand behind one's country than it is to seek to score points or advance a personal political agenda. The British flag, which stands as a symbol of liberty, of democracy and of the rule of law, is one that for millions of people entails freedom and liberation.

Sometimes, it is asked whether Britain has the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries. To this, I say two things: first, that where we see genocide, where we see the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, and where we see the trampling of democracy and individual freedoms, we do not have the right not to act. It is our basic responsibility as an enlightened and empowered nation of certain freedoms to defend those freedoms around the world, so that all of mankind may be protected from the atrocities that have all too often defined past centuries and which we must make certain do not define the present or future of the human story.

It is worth, I believe, reflecting upon the history of British military intervention even as we consider its future. It is also worth considering, as I intend to do, the effect of a failure of the international community, of civilised and freedom-loving countries, to act when it would have been profoundly appropriate to do so.

Of course, during the 19th Century, it was Britain which liberated Europe from Napoleonic rule. It was Britain's Royal Navy, during the Pax Britannica - a half-century of unparalleled peace in the world due to Britain's singular dominance - which brought to an end the trade in slavery and liberated thousands from the clutches of a system which treated human beings as cattle. But the national consciousness begins, often, with 1914.

It was on 4 August 1914 that Britain declared war on Germany. She committed herself to fight in the defence of a principle which defined British foreign policy then as it does now; the principle of national sovereignty and self-determination, defiled as it was by the German Heer's advance through neutral Belgium. We upheld the principle that aggressors on the international stage, whether territorial or ideological in their ambition, cannot be allowed to act unimpeded as the freedom-loving nations of the world stand idly by and do nothing. Britain stood firm in the spirit of the words of Edmund Burke, a patriot, genius and forefather of the modern Conservative: 'all that it takes in order for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'

Almost nine million soldiers from the United Kingdom and her wider British Empire laid down their lives in the defence of liberty, sovereignty and justice. In the face of a militant, tyrannical regime, they fought for the freedom of Europe and of its people. When the guns fell silent, Britain and her allies had emerged victorious.

In the years of the interbellum, Britain fought twice for freedom in Eastern Europe - successfully contributing to the defence of Latvia and Estonia against the barbarous, bolshevik regime which had seized power in Russia. 

In 1939, Britain went to war in defence of sovereignty and of Europe's freedom once again. This time it was the invasion of Poland by a Germany dominated by national socialists which sparked British intervention on the continent. For nearly two years following the fall of France to fascist invaders, Britain and her Commonwealth stood alone in the world against the menace of a murderous death cult with a stranglehold over the rest of Europe, and waited for invasion of her own land to come at any moment. The world was plunged into darkness, and 70 million people died - a death toll equivalent to the population of the entire United Kingdom today.

British soldiers fought again against communism in Greece, Malaya and Korea, and against the fascist junta which sought to establish rule of British citizens in the Falkland Islands in 1982. The United Kingdom fought against Saddam Hussein's Iraq for the freedom of Kuwait, against the slaughterers of Kosovar refugees, and against the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone. Our partnership with the international community, and especially our foremost and erstwhile friend, the United States, saw our brave servicemen and women fight against despots and terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq little more than ten years ago, and for years our Royal Air Force has been engaged from the air in the war against ISIL: a murderous, death-worshipping cult responsible for the persecution of religious and ethnic minority groups, the vile treatment of civilians, the use of child soldiers, sexual violence and slavery, beheadings, mass executions and the use of chemical weapons.

Over more than a century, Britain has fought consistently to uphold the values of individual liberty, democracy, justice and the rule of law. We fought against fascism, communism and the whole range of depravity that lies between on the warped political compass of authoritarian derangement in political and theological thought. The price paid by our people for our erstwhile commitment to lasting peace, built in the knowledge that to appease an aggressor entails only the spilling of infinitely more blood and treasure in the future, has been dear. The sacrifice made by generations of British soldiers is almost unparalleled; as is the bond, the brothership in arms, that has been formed between the peoples of the United Kingdom and the United States, our allies in the Commonwealth, our European partners and our friends around the world.

When Britain has chosen not to lead, the world has seldom led without her. In Rwanda in 1994 the free world stood by silently as millions were slaughtered in a petrifying genocide. During the Bosnian war of the early 1990s, the international community took insufficient and inadequate steps to protect the lives and livelihoods of minorities, resulting in devastation which would soon fuel a future war.

It is clear to me that all too often the price of doing nothing is greater by far than the price of being prepared to act, and indeed the moral imperative as British people, as people of the United Kingdom, which is for me an identity more powerful than any other, is - when we observe injustice, intolerance and violence against the innocent - that we should act, and act with strength. As Admiral Nelson said, the boldest measures are often the safest; and all too often, we have learned that lesson through insufficient boldness on the part of our policymakers.

In 2013, when the Syrian Civil War was young and ISIL was in its infancy, this august House had the chance to vote for military action to bring that conflict to an end. We chose, due to the intransigence of some members who continue to view peace as a means to its own end, not to join with our partners in saying no to the use of chemical weapons in breach of international law. In failing to act, we empowered others with motives less pure than ours to do so: we directly empowered ISIL, and it is a matter of great shame to me that when the call went out on that day, the British Parliament was not prepared to answer it even as our troops readied their boots.

Today, with the rising tide of ISIL extremism at home and abroad, I fully support the government's intention to launch military action against terrorists who are the heirs in spirit to those depraved fiends who in 1942 at Wannsee agreed to the mechanised murder of six million Jews. I back the Prime Minister to the hilt on the need for airstrikes in both Iraq and in Syria, and I also back her wish that British troops should support the Iraqi armed forces in providing training and logistical assistance. Particularly in the light of the attack upon the Norwegian Escape, it is clear that ISIL poses a clear and present threat to British people and British interests, and those of our esteemed allies. We cannot choose not to act; to do so would be a derogation of our duty to our own people and indeed to humanity.

I therefore urge this House in the strongest possible terms to vote in favour of this motion, and urge the Prime Minister to show the resolve, the steel, of some of her great predecessors in this place in fighting for sanity against an organisation - and its affiliates - which are truly unhinged.

My sole concern would be whether 1,000 British soldiers is a number sufficient to turn the tide of this war: indeed, I fear that a training and logistical support role, whilst necessary, may not be sufficient in order to support the Iraqi armed forces in preventing the fall of Baghdad in the long-term. Last time Britain and the United States went into Iraq in 2003, we learned the lesson of committing too few resources in too haphazard a way. Our soldiers were not able to control looting and civil disorder following the fall of Saddam; they were not able to prevent the deterioration of ethno-religious tensions and insurgencies into a fully-blown civil war between the Sunni and the Shia; and it was not until the troop surge of 2007, when for the first time a number of troops sufficient for the maintenance of order and the quashing of terrorist groups was present in Iraq, that the situation began to fall under control.

My question to the Prime Minister, even as I commend her for her rapid action, would be for why she is content that our small commitment in this matter will be sufficient - and whether she is certain that the Iraqi army, augmented only by 1,000 British troops in an auxiliary role, is capable of defeating ISIL without a significantly more substantive commitment being required.

I would also ask the Prime Minister whether, following the attack upon the Norwegian Escape, the Prime Minister and her counterpart in Washington, President Obama, have considered the invocation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's charter. it seems clear to me that an attack upon British and American citizens such as this bombing represents the kind of threat against a sovereign people which impels NATO allies to take action towards our collective defence.

I thank the Prime Minister in anticipation of her answers, and again reiterate my full and undivided support for the measures she is proposing. I commend this motion to the House.

Administrator
Labour Party Adviser
Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence Moderator
Media Supremo


ReplyQuote
Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
12/07/2019 12:16 am  

Mr Speaker,

I thank the honourable Member from Uxbridge and South Ruislip for her enlightening commentary on British military history. I share her disappointment with the inaction of the world community and the inaction of British leaders during the Rwandan genocide and the Bosnia War. During that conflict I found myself quite in agreement with the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, in her call to stop the excuses and help Bosnia now." However, I will digress from matters of history and back to the matter at hand.

Regarding her questions - in regard to military strategy the current conflict against Daesh, as I stated in my response to the Rt Hon Member for Bracknell, is quite different from the previous conflict in Iraq. The current conflict is defined by clearly defined fronts that are reminiscent of a conventional war. This is far different from the counterinsurgency strategy that was mandated in response to the deterioration of the situation in the first Iraq conflict. The fight against Daesh is a matter of territorial removal and denial, not a matter of occupying a hostile urban environment.

Further, Mr Speaker, the commitment of 1,000 British troops is a rather small part of the overall package. At least five other nations are committed to deploying ground forces in Iraq - all at similar or greater levels. At future meetings, additional members of the coalition will be brought into ground activities and additional commitments will be sought. Therefore, the forces utilised in this campaign will be significantly more than the size of the British contingent alone. Of course, Mr Speaker, should the coalition commanders and the Defence Staff deem more soldiers necessary, we will pursue further options. This, however, is believed to be what is needed at this moment.

Simply put, Mr Speaker, the challenges that we face today are far different from the challenges that we faced in Iraq a decade ago.

Regarding the invocation of Article V, Mr Speaker, the legal case for invocation is not on stable ground, at best. While an attack of this nature, I will agree, is an attack on our nation, on America, and on the West as a whole - an attack on a vessel in international waters does not fit the criteria for Article V invocation as it was not an attack taking place in Europe or North America. It was for this reason that Article V was not invoked following the 1998 attack on the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or following the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. We will seek appropriate backing at the UN and NATO for this operation though.

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


ReplyQuote
Roger Brigham
(@roger-brigham)
Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 76
12/07/2019 2:05 am  

Mr. Speaker,

It’s with great sadness that I talk today from this House, after receiving the news that some of our fellow citizens have been assassinated by Islamic Radical Terrorism, I send my condolences to the families and friends of the deceased in this act of cowardice.

I thank the Prime Minister for bringing this proposal to this House, where the cradle of British Democracy is placed, I strongly believe that we, the Commons, the Representatives of the people, must be informed by Government about the main decisions our country leaders take.

Unfortunately today we are debating this motion, we would prefer to not do it, this would mean that no Islamic terrorism remains in this country, but this is not the current situation, a few hours ago we received the information that fellow citizens were killed by terrorists, we can’t accept that, we can’t accept more dies in the hands of terror, as a society we must say: STOP, and place solutions to defeat terrorists like ISIL.

We are not alone in this fight, we know it, and we must take advantage from that, our allies have the same problem, and we must support each other, terrorism is a global issue that must be stopped.

I will vote Aye to this motion and I ask my honorable members to do the same, we have an opportunity to face directly terrorism, an opportunity to make British people safer, and we have to take it. But I also recognize and say to the Government, that Islamic Radical Terrorism won’t be stopped only with airstrikes or other support to forces that face ISIL, we also need new tools, we need a Total War against ISIL, and this includes putting the necessary means to stop funding of ISIL and other radical Islamic terrorist organizations, an economic war against ISIL is a need that shouldn’t be delayed, we have to stop aiding countries that fund terrorists and also destroy all the facilities that generate wealth for terrorism. A Total War against ISIL also includes a cybernetic war, terrorists take advantage from internet and the network to expand their messages and recruit new people, British security services need more improvements to prepare an adequate reaction to bring down recruitment and stop British people from joining terror forces, we also need juridical reform to punish internal terrorists and dissuade future ones.

All of this of course, must be accompanied by adequate military actions, from air strikes to ground Deployment if it’s necessary, I completely support our Armed Forces on this and I’m proud of the men and women that defend our democracy, our rights and our land.

I always said that the country must unite to face the dangers of radicals, the dangers of terrorism, because it’s a country issue independently if you are a member of Labour, Liberal Democrats or Conservatives, therefore I declare that I support the motion.

Roger Brigham
MP for Richmond Park

Parliamentary: Unknown (8)
Media: Novice (22)
Policy: Unknown (6)


ReplyQuote
Kandler
(@kandler)
Member A-team
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 98
12/07/2019 9:59 pm  
Posted by: Caroline Blakesley

Mr Speaker,

I thank the honourable Member from Uxbridge and South Ruislip for her enlightening commentary on British military history. I share her disappointment with the inaction of the world community and the inaction of British leaders during the Rwandan genocide and the Bosnia War. During that conflict I found myself quite in agreement with the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, in her call to stop the excuses and help Bosnia now." However, I will digress from matters of history and back to the matter at hand.

Regarding her questions - in regard to military strategy the current conflict against Daesh, as I stated in my response to the Rt Hon Member for Bracknell, is quite different from the previous conflict in Iraq. The current conflict is defined by clearly defined fronts that are reminiscent of a conventional war. This is far different from the counterinsurgency strategy that was mandated in response to the deterioration of the situation in the first Iraq conflict. The fight against Daesh is a matter of territorial removal and denial, not a matter of occupying a hostile urban environment.

Further, Mr Speaker, the commitment of 1,000 British troops is a rather small part of the overall package. At least five other nations are committed to deploying ground forces in Iraq - all at similar or greater levels. At future meetings, additional members of the coalition will be brought into ground activities and additional commitments will be sought. Therefore, the forces utilised in this campaign will be significantly more than the size of the British contingent alone. Of course, Mr Speaker, should the coalition commanders and the Defence Staff deem more soldiers necessary, we will pursue further options. This, however, is believed to be what is needed at this moment.

Simply put, Mr Speaker, the challenges that we face today are far different from the challenges that we faced in Iraq a decade ago.

Regarding the invocation of Article V, Mr Speaker, the legal case for invocation is not on stable ground, at best. While an attack of this nature, I will agree, is an attack on our nation, on America, and on the West as a whole - an attack on a vessel in international waters does not fit the criteria for Article V invocation as it was not an attack taking place in Europe or North America. It was for this reason that Article V was not invoked following the 1998 attack on the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or following the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. We will seek appropriate backing at the UN and NATO for this operation though.

Mr Speaker, sir,

I thank the Prime Minister for her eloquent response to my questions. Can she confirm for the benefit of the House what the total commitment is in terms of troop numbers from all those parties which have committed to contribute, and can she provide a breakdown of which countries will be contributing what resources?

Mr Speaker, will the Prime Minister also agree with me that servicemen and women who are deployed to an area of ongoing armed conflict should be entitled to a salary bonus reflecting the sacrifice they are making for the duration of their tour, and will she commit to making arrangements for such a dividend to be put in place?

Administrator
Labour Party Adviser
Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence Moderator
Media Supremo


ReplyQuote
Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
13/07/2019 4:37 pm  

Mr Speaker,

Each of the six allies have committed to the 800-1000 number. Each of the allies is in the process of assigning units to this task, much as the United Kingdom currently is. The final number deployed will largely depend on the units that are assigned, as I am sure the Hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip is aware that individual units will vary to a degree in size. In terms of resources, all members of the coalition will be providing humanitarian and military aid. Military contributions will vary on an as needed basis. For example, states such as Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain are allowing allied aircraft access to air bases and will be joining our aircraft in sorties over Iraq and Syria. These will be managed from the Combined Air Operations Centre in Qatar. Additionally, it is our intention that all members, particularly NATO members, will provide logistical support for forces moving to and from the region.

Regarding the Hon Member's second question, Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Defence maintains its commitment to paying the Operational Allowance allowed to soldiers deployed in an operational zone.

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


ReplyQuote
Caroline Blakesley
(@caroline-blakesley)
Prime Minister & MP for Hammersmith
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 158
15/07/2019 11:27 pm  

Mr Speaker,

The Government, I believe, has made its case for a meaningful intervention in Syria and Iraq to combat Daesh. I move now that the question be put.

Caroline Blakesley
Prime Minister
MP for Hammersmith

Parliamentary: Unknown (13)
Media: Unknown (17)
Policy: Unknown (18)


ReplyQuote
Josh
 Josh
(@michael-kirton)
Canadian AV A-team
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 50
17/07/2019 8:27 pm  

Speaker Harman

Order! Division. Clear the lobbies.

Your friendly neighbourhood Canadian AV


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 3
Share: