Jeremy Corbyn to David Cameron: do you accept UK bombing of Syria could risk unintended consequences?

Mr Corbyn raised a series of questions with Mr Cameron, including on the detail of a UN resolution and the contribution Britain could make to the campaign already under way.

And the Labour leader said: "In the light of the record of western intervention in recent years, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, do you accept that UK bombing of Syria could risk more of what president Obama called unintended consequences?

"A lasting defeat of Isil can only be secured by Syrians and their forces within the region."

Mr Corbyn said: "After the despicable and horrific attacks in Paris a fortnight ago, the whole House will I am sure agree our priority has to be the security of people in this country in the future.

"When we consider your case for military action, the issue of whether what you propose strengthens or undermines our security must be front and centre stage of our minds.

"There is no doubt the so-called Islamic State group has imposed a reign of terror on millions in Iraq, in Syria and now in Libya. All that Isil stands for and does is contrary to everything those of us on these benches have struggled for over many generations.

"There is no doubt 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 Isil is waging in the Middle East."

Mr Corbyn outlined seven questions to Mr Cameron, starting with whether he believed joining air strikes carried out by the US, France and Russia would make a "significant military impact on the ground".

The Labour leader asked whether Mr Cameron believed he had a "war winning strategy", raising the withdrawal of Canadian and Australian forces.

Mr Corbyn continued: "Is it your view the air campaign against Isil-held areas can be successful without ground forces? If not, do you believe the Kurdish forces or the relatively marginal and remote Free Syrian Army would be in a position to take back Isil-held territory if the air campaign were successful?

"Is it not more likely other, stronger jihadist and radical Salafist forces would take over?"

Mr Corbyn added: "Without credible or acceptable ground forces, isn't the logic of an intensified air campaign mission creep and western boots on the ground.

"Can you today rule out the deployment of British ground forces to Syria?"

Turning to the UN Security Council Resolution, which called for "all necessary measures" to tackle Isil, Mr Corbyn questioned whether it gave "clear and ambiguous" authorisation for UK air strikes.

He said: "In the absence of any coordinated UN, military or diplomatic strategy, do you believe more military forces over Syria could increase the risk of dangerous incidents such as the shooting down of a Russian military aircraft by Turkish forces this week?"

Mr Corbyn questioned how UK bombing would contribute to a "comprehensive, negotiated political settlement of the Syrian civil war", adding: "This is widely believed to be the only way to ensure the defeat of Isil in the country.

"The Vienna Conference last weekend was a good step forward but it has some way to go."

Mr Cameron said he respected Mr Corbyn's long-held views on such issues and "quite correct caution before committing to any of these actions", adding: "I do believe there is a good answer to the seven absolutely legitimate questions you asked."

The PM repeated the UK's allies want them to take part, insisting they would make a military difference.

On the issue of "boots on the ground", Mr Cameron ruled out British involvement.

He said: "We are not deploying British combat forces, we're not going to deploy British combat forces.

"We think actually the presence of western boots on the ground in that way would be counter-productive.

"That is one of the things I think we've all collectively, across the House, learnt from previous conflicts and we don't want to make that mistake again."

Mr Cameron said he believes the language in the UN resolution is "very clear" and noted Britain has permission to fly over Turkish air space as the country is an ally.

He also said: "We can't have a future Syria with the existence of this caliphate taking over such a large amount of its territory.

"When we look to the future of Syria it's going to need the involvement of moderate Sunnis in the future of that country so the more we can help them, the better the chance of transition is."

Mr Cameron said British capabilities will help "reduce civilian casualties", adding there have been "no reports of civilian casualties" during the UK's 15-month air campaign in Iraq.

Crispin Blunt, Conservative chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, offered his personal support to Mr Cameron's plan.

He said: "In the light of Vienna and your response to the committee, it's now my personal view, on balance, the country would be best served by this House supporting your judgment that the United Kingdom should play a full role in the coalition to best support the shape and politics, thus enabling the earliest military and eventual ideological defeat of Isil."

Mr Cameron said Mr Crispin was right to say the politics of the region are important for the UK's understanding of the issues, adding he was happy to make regular updates about his plan.

Angus Robertson, the SNP's Westminster leader, said the party will not support a vote for military action unless key questions are "satisfactorily" answered.

Mr Robertson said: "The Prime Minister has talked about 70,000 Free Syrian Army troops. How many of those are in the north east of Syria on the frontline against Daesh as opposed to countering Syrian regime forces?"

He questioned the long-term plan for Syria's reconstruction, noting the UK spent 13 times more on bombing Libya than on stabilising and rebuilding the country after the conflict.

Mr Robertson said: "Two years ago the Prime Minister urged us to bomb the opponents of Daesh in Syria. That would probably have strengthened this terrorist organisation.

"Today the Prime Minister wants us to launch a bombing campaign without effective ground support in place or a fully-costed reconstruction and stability plan.

"The Prime Minister has asked us to consider his plan, we've listened closely.

"However, key questions posed by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee remain unanswered and unless the Prime Minister answers these questions satisfactorily the Scottish National Party will not vote for air strikes in Syria."

Mr Cameron repeated action needed to be taken now to protect Britons from terrorist attacks.

He said Syria was more complicated than Iraq but believed there were moderate forces which could be supported to take and hold land to "relieve suffering", saying this was seen in Kobane.

On long-term plans for Syria, Mr Cameron said the UK has one of the largest aid budgets in the world and he believes the "whole world would come together" when a new Syrian government is in place.

He added the Syrian people would "not be left wanting for support".

Conservative former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell said Mr Cameron had made an "absolutely compelling" case to take action to protect civilians in Britain and Syria.

Labour's David Winnick (Walsall North) said he believed MPs were right to vote against potential military action in Syria in 2013, adding: "The crux of the issue for every member of this House is this - would military action help the situation to defeat Isis?

"I happen to believe the answer is no and I wonder how many members of the House really believe that it'll make any real difference at all in defeating this hated death cult."

Former shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said Mr Cameron had made a "strong moral and legal case" for tackling the "new totalitarianism" propagated by Isil, adding: "Given the different Russian objectives in Syria, how will you avoid giving the support, or appearing to give support, to Assad forces and becoming dependent on Assad forces?

"How will you avoid that giving succour to Isil in its recruitment in the region?"

Mr Cameron said: "This is the important issue but we have been very clear our target is Isil, not the regime.

"We will be helped in our combating of Isil if the Sunni majority in Syria continue to believe, rightly, that we believe Syria requires a transition away from Assad.

"I think the gap between us (and Russia) has narrowed, Russia sees the danger of Isil and is attacking it... the difference is Russia is still attacking the moderate Syrian forces we believe in time could be part of a genuine transition in Syria."

Former defence secretary Liam Fox said: "For the United Kingdom not to act is in itself a policy position which will have consequences. The jihadists hate us not for what we do but for who we are and what we stand for.

"Do you agree we do not have the luxury of not confronting Isil because they have chosen to confront us.

"The question is whether we confront them over there or increasingly take the risk of having to confront them over here."

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron warned against "knee-jerk" reactions to the terror attacks in Paris.

He said: "You recognise air strikes alone will not defeat Isil. You have already heard you will need to give much more evidence to this House to convince it the ground operations are there, are sufficient, have the capability and credibility to deliver on the ground.

"What role will Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other gulf states play in delivering this victory if that is the direction we choose to go as a country."

Mr Cameron replied: "I am determined there should be no knee-jerk reaction. I take very seriously what happened in Paris, I know absolutely that could just as well happen in the UK, it could just as well happen in Belgium or elsewhere in Europe."

He added: "Saudi and other countries have been helping to fund the moderate Syrian opposition which in my view need to play a part in the future of this country and they strongly support the action Britain is proposing to take."

Former Labour leadership contender Liz Kendall said: "You make a strong case to the House today but you will be aware MPs on both sides of the House will want reassuring you and your government will indeed show the persistence and patience required over many months to get agreement on both the political strategy in reconstruction in Syria and Iraq."

Mr Cameron replied: "The commitment I can give is this is not only the number one national security issue we face but also the migration crisis in Europe is a massive question for all European countries.

"It deserves the maximum amount of attention and resources we can give it.

"I believe we will have to be patient and persistent, not just on the political, diplomatic and humanitarian angles... but also we will require persistence in terms of the military action we take.

"In Iraq, the persistent action has led to a 30% reduction in Isil-held territory but these gains will not be won quickly."

Tory Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) said: "If the attack, God forbid, had happened in London and not in Paris, I believe today the British people would be outraged, dismayed and upset that our allies did not have our back and their politicians were taking so long to procrastinate about whether to come to their help."

Mr Cameron said he could not assure MPs that the threat of terrorism in Britain would be removed by bombing IS.

He said: "That bomb in Paris, that could have been London.

"If they had their way it would be London. I can't stand here and say we're safe from all these threats, we're not.

"I can't stand here either and say we will remove the threat through the action that we take.

"But do I stand here with advice behind me, that taking action will degrade and reduce that threat over time, absolutely, and I've examined my conscience and that's what it's telling me."

Answering Mr Robertson's concerns, Mr Cameron insisted his intelligence on the Free Syrian Army was verified through robust mechanisms that did not even exist before the Iraq War, stressing that he was "understating everything".

The PM said: "In no way do I want to be in any way accused of inventing intelligence information or overstating intelligence.

"I'm trying to understate everything in here, the only thing I'm absolutely clear about is we face a threat and we should deal with it."

Meanwhile, Tory former Army colonel Bob Stewart called for a Commons vote on action to be held next week.

He said: "I applaud you for trying to get parliamentary approval for coordinated, offensive action in Syria and ask that we bring this highly potent gesture to a vote of this House as soon as next week because our allies really want us to prove that we are fully with them."

Former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie described the United Nations Security Council's resolution relating to Syria as a "pivotal moment".

He asked the Prime Minister: "Can he confirm that it doesn't just permit all necessary steps to be taken to eradicate Isil, it doesn't just allow all necessary steps, but it actually calls upon member states to take all necessary steps?

"What would it say about our judgment if we fail to take heed of the appeal from the United Nations?"

Mr Cameron replied: "On the Security Council resolution, it confirms the right of member states to defend themselves and others and it confirms the need to do so against Isil. I think it is a very powerful point.

"When people talk about knee-jerk reactions we do need to think about what's changed.

"What's changed is we do have a UN security council resolution, Paris has happened, the political process has happened, the advice about the need for action is so clear."

Meanwhile, Sir Edward Leigh, Tory MP for Gainsborough, told Mr Cameron he had made a "very convincing case" for action but added that a "very convincing case was made for the Iraq war".

Sir Edward said the "weakest part" of the argument relates to ground troops.

"This ragtag army of the Free Syrians is not going to take this Isil territory," he said.

Sir Edward stressed the need to work with Russia and Assad "if we are going to complete a bombing war and look forward to reconstruction after that".

But Mr Cameron asked the House not to "look back to Iraq and 2003".

"We have got to separate in our minds and in our actions and in our votes the case in front of us now from what people feel they were told back in 2003," he said.

However, Mr Cameron admitted the issue of who will take the fight to IS on the ground is probably the "most difficult argument".

"I'm not denying that," he said.

"I'm not pretending that there is some perfect armed force formed up and ready for us to work with.

"I'm saying don't underestimate the fact that there are these Free Syrian Army forces and there are Kurdish forces that can help.

"I'm not overplaying them, I'm not over bigging them up - they do exist, they are doing good work, we can help them.

"But I have said very specifically the real arrival of the ground troops that we need will follow from a political transition and a new government in Syria."

Richard Drax, the Tory MP for South Dorset, cautioned the Prime Minister against ruling out the use of Western ground troops in the battle against Isil.

He said: "God forbid but further major attacks on the West as we have seen in Paris, London and New York could, I say could, force, indeed demand, the Western allies to deploy with local troops to crush Isil and prevent further atrocities on our streets."

But Mr Cameron said: "We do have to think here about the danger of being counter-productive and I think there is good evidence from history that the presence of Western ground troops could itself be a radicaliser.

"That is why we are charting such a careful path and saying we support action from the air, support for those troops on the ground, but we don't propose the application of British ground troops."

In the Lords, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, welcomed the Prime Minister's commitment to a comprehensive approach.

"For the first time in almost 300 years we are facing a conflict that has a distinct theological and religious element," he said.

In facing the conflict there must be an "ideological response that is not only national in dealing with the threat of extremism here but is global in challenging the doctrines that draw so many people to support IS internationally", the Archbishop added.

Former chief of the defence staff and independent crossbencher Lord Stirrup said it was "wrong and shameful" to suggest that the UK should not use its military capability because other countries already were.

He said that if military action was taken against IS in Syria specialist personnel should be deployed "on the ground" to ensure precision weapons were used to "best effect".

Lords leader Baroness Stowell of Beeston replied: "We cannot shed our responsibility here. We are under threat ourselves. We see the IS force as a direct threat to our way of life. How could we possibly hand over responsibility for that to other people?"

Lady Stowell said weapons would have to be directed at the right targets but ruled out UK ground forces being involved.

Former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon said the UN security council resolution provided a "pretty clear case" for the legality of action.

Lord Ashdown warned that whatever peace was achieved it would be "messy," adding: "This will not be a comfortable peace, it will be a fractured peace."

But he added that however "uncertain and unsatisfying" such a peace was, it was better than "continuing this terrible war".

Tory former Cabinet minister John Gummer, who sits in the House as Lord Deben, said he had voted against the Iraq war but added: "This situation is wholly different from that very foolish occurrence.

"We ought to support our allies, accept that we are involved and our people are threatened," he said. "The Prime Minister's statement should be supported by all."