I would like to thank the Prime Minister for providing an advance copy of his remarks. After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris a fortnight ago the whole House will, I’m sure, agree that our first priority must be the security of Britain and the safety of the British people.
So when we consider the Prime Minister’s case for military action in Syria, the issue of whether what he proposes strengthens – or undermines – our national security must be front and centre stage.
There is no doubt that the so-called Islamic State group has imposed a reign of terror on millions in Iraq, Syria and Libya. All that ISIS stands for and does is contrary to everything those of us on these benches have struggled for over generations.
And there is no doubt that it poses a threat to our own people.
The question must now be whether extending the UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce, or increase, that threat and whether it will counter, or spread, the terror campaign ISIS is waging in the Middle East.
With that in mind, I would like to put seven questions to the Prime Minister.
First, does the Prime Minister believe that extending air strikes to Syria – which is already being bombed by the US, France, Russia and other powers – will make a significant military impact on a campaign which has so far seen ISIS gain, as well as lose, territory?
Does he expect it will be a war-winning strategy? And why does he think other members of the original coalition – including the Gulf States, Canada and Australia – have halted their participation?
Second, is the Prime Minister’s view that the air campaign against ISIS-held areas...
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in