‘Showing leadership’ over Iraq is fraught with dangers for David Cameron

The public and parliament will no longer blindly support gung-ho action

Share

The pressure grows on David Cameron to show “strong leadership” in relation to Iraq. Former army leaders call for military action that goes beyond humanitarian aid. Some Conservative MPs do so as well. Parts of the media frame Cameron’s response to the unfolding horrors as the ultimate test of his authority. Events raise the temperature. When a likely British national is linked to the gruesome killing of an American journalist the crisis in Iraq moves closer to the UK.

Ed Miliband has been wondering whether this crisis, in all its various dark manifestations, would be the overwhelming theme and challenge of his period in power if he were to become Prime Minister. More immediately, the calamity in Iraq will top Cameron’s agenda when MPs return to parliament next month.

The prospect of military intervention highlights more vividly than any other the degree to which Cameron leads in a hung parliament. Given that his party did not win an overall majority, Cameron’s will has prevailed on a remarkable range of domestic issues, implementing changes on the radical right that Margaret Thatcher would not have dared to even contemplate. It is easy to forget he is a Prime Minister without an overall majority. But after the calamitous 2003 war in Iraq, Cameron is unavoidably constrained.

The pressures on a Prime Minister now are almost precisely the opposite of those that Tony Blair felt he was under as a Labour leader. Then Blair assumed he would appear weak if he could not show he was ready for war - a Labour Prime Minister capable of standing shoulder to shoulder with a US President. Now a Prime Minister must have a much stronger case for intervention in alliance with the US, or with any other country.

The assumption that voters or Parliament would support a seemingly ‘strong’ Prime Minister at times of conflict no longer applies. Blair might have looked under terrible pressure in the build-up to the 2003 war, but he knew that Parliament would back him because the Conservative leadership was more gung-ho than he was and he hoped that once the war got under way the voters would also support him, as they did for a time. Cameron and future Prime Ministers cannot work on such assumptions.

As I argued a fortnight ago, the vote in the Commons against military action in Syria made it improbable that Cameron would seek to recall parliament this summer. The vote followed the interruption of the recess exactly a year ago. Since writing that column I note quite a lot of revisionism from those who are still furious with Labour and Conservative MPs who dared to vote against military action. The revisionists argue that the failure to support military intervention in Syria has led to the rise of ISIS. Last summer ISIS detected weakness in the UK, with the vote in the Commons, and then the US. In effect the revisionists blame Ed Miliband for the rise of ISIS in Iraq because he voted against military action.

Miliband might have been in a state of agonised indecision in the build-up to last year’s vote on Syria, and is perhaps similarly tormented now about what to say in relation to Iraq. But in stopping hasty, vaguely planned missile attacks on Syria, Miliband and the dissenting Conservative MPs were learning the lessons of recent history rather than ignoring them.

The debate from a year ago is worth revisiting. Opponents of military action were precise in their concerns. None were opposed to intervention in any circumstances, but they sought a degree of clarity about the purpose of this particular proposed action and suggested that more time should be given to explore options. There would be no rush to war as there was in Iraq when the military action began while the weapons’ inspectors were pleading for more time and diplomatic options had been far from exhausted. The dissenters in the Syrian debate were not insular or weak. Rightly, they were setting a higher bar before Britain went to war again.

Rather than exposing the recklessness of the Commons vote, the nightmare in Iraq reinforces the case for considered, forensic caution. ISIS was part of the opposition seeking the removal of Assad in Syria. Almost certainly ISIS acquired arms from Assad’s opponents, including the US. Now I hear some former army leaders and diplomats argue that the US in particular must engage with Assad in order to defeat ISIS in Iraq. Such a prospect could not have been contemplated if the US and UK were currently at war in Syria. None of the dissenters in the Syrian debate were claiming that they expected the world to be suddenly a safer place. They are not daft and know that not intervening also has consequences. Quite simply they were not convinced by the specifics of the planned intervention and voted accordingly.

Cameron still has some space to act. The case for limited military action is unrecognisably different from the invasion in 2003. Then a war was instigated to remove Saddam, although for some time President Bush and Tony Blair argued that their crusade was aimed at removing Saddam’s weapons and not the tyrant. Now there is no interest in removing a regime in Baghdad. On the contrary, there is hope that at some point an elected leader will show the capacity to work with all the factions in the divided country, but also a fear that no such leader will have the appetite or the means for such a unifying mission.

Any military action would be aimed solely at weakening militants who carry out acts of extreme violence. Polls suggest that opposition to intervention is nowhere near as great as it was in the build-up to the 2003 war. Formidable opponents then such as the Liberal Democrats’ Sir Menzies Campbell have not ruled out support for limited military intervention. Cameron has yet to make a compelling case and he may never be in a position to do so, but it is not impossible that he could win support for military action in certain circumstances.

This has been the summer of appalling images and terrifying conflict, but the context in which a Prime Minister takes decisions about going to war is much healthier. The burden of proof is on those that want to intervene as much as those who are opposed. Strong leadership no longer means sending our boys to war with fingers crossed and without reflecting deeply on what might follow.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Sales Representative - South West England

£40000 - £50000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: The largest manufacturer of UPV...

Recruitment Genius: Customer Service Supervisor

£15000 - £20000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This company is a well establis...

Recruitment Genius: IT Technical Support Engineer / Helpdesk Engineer

£16500 - £22500 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Due to continued growth an exce...

Recruitment Genius: SEO Executive

£23000 - £27000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A full-service agency based in ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Karen Danczuk is married to anti-child sex abuse campaigner Simon Danczuk MP  

The less said about the Danczuks the better – but try and stop them

Grace Dent
 

Budget 2015: George Osborne should earn his reputation for courage by abolishing free TV licences for the over 75s

Christopher Bland
Greece debt crisis: EU 'family' needs to forgive rather than punish an impoverished state

EU 'family' needs to forgive rather than punish an impoverished state

An outbreak of malaria in Greece four years ago helps us understand the crisis, says Robert Fisk
Gaza, a year on from Operation Protective Edge: The traumatised kibbutz on Israel's front line, still recovering from last summer's war with Hamas

Gaza, a year on from Operation Protective Edge

The traumatised kibbutz on Israel's front line, still recovering from last summer's war with Hamas
How to survive electrical storms: What are the chances of being hit by lightning?

Heavy weather

What are the chances of being hit by lightning?
World Bodypainting Festival 2015: Bizarre and brilliant photos celebrate 'the body as art'

World Bodypainting Festival 2015

Bizarre and brilliant photos celebrate 'the body as art'
alt-j: A private jet, a Mercury Prize and Latitude headliners

Don't call us nerds

Craig Mclean meets alt-j - the math-folk act who are flying high
How to find gold: The Californian badlands, digging out crevasses and sifting sludge

How to find gold

Steve Boggan finds himself in the Californian badlands, digging out crevasses and sifting sludge
Singing accents: From Herman's Hermits and David Bowie to Alesha Dixon

Not born in the USA

Lay off Alesha Dixon: songs sound better in US accents, even our national anthem
10 best balsamic vinegars

10 best balsamic vinegars

Drizzle it over salad, enjoy it with ciabatta, marinate vegetables, or use it to add depth to a sauce - this versatile staple is a cook's best friend
Wimbledon 2015: Brief glimpses of the old Venus but Williams sisters' epic wars belong to history

Brief glimpses of the old Venus but Williams sisters' epic wars belong to history

Serena dispatched her elder sister 6-4, 6-3 in eight minutes more than an hour
Greece says 'No': A night of huge celebrations in Athens as voters decisively back Tsipras and his anti-austerity stance in historic referendum

Greece referendum

Greeks say 'No' to austerity and plunge Europe into crisis
Ten years after the 7/7 terror attacks, is Britain an altered state?

7/7 bombings anniversary

Ten years after the terror attacks, is Britain an altered state?
Beautiful evening dresses are some of the loveliest Donatella has created

Versace haute couture review

Beautiful evening dresses are some of the loveliest Donatella has ever created
No hope and no jobs, so Gaza's young risk their lives, climb the fence and run for it

No hope and no jobs in Gaza

So the young risk their lives and run for it
Fashion apps: Retailers roll together shopping and social networking for mobile customers

Fashion apps

Retailers roll together shopping and social networking for mobile customers
The Greek referendum exposes a gaping hole at the heart of the European Union – its distinct lack of any genuine popular legitimacy

Gaping hole at the heart of the European Union

Treatment of Greece has shown up a lack of genuine legitimacy