tv Steve Lombardo on the Koch Brothers CSPAN November 26, 2015 9:50pm-10:36pm EST
. there is a real political process underway. this could lead to a new government in syria with whom we can work to defeat isil. as i explained yesterday, we cannot wait for that to be complete before we begin acting to degrade isil. let's be clear about the military objectives we are pursuing. terroristsdefeat the by dismantling networks, stopping funding, targeting outning camps, and taking attacks against the u.k., but there is a broader objective. as long as isil can pedal the myth of a caliphate in iraq in syria, it will be a rallying call for extremists around the world and that makes us less safe. just as we reduce the scale and size of the so-called caliphate in iraq, pushing it out of iraq,
so we need to do the same thing in syria. mr. speaker, another reason for action now is that success in iraq in squeezing the caliphate is put at risk by our failure to act in syria. this border is not recognized by isil and we tamper our efforts if we stop acting when we reach the border. when we come to the question, why now, we have to ask ourselves whether the risks of inaction are greater than the risks of taking action? every day we failed to act is a day when isil can grow stronger and more plots can be undertaken. mr. speaker, that is why their all says yes,ved that the risks of inaction are -- someto some of our asking specifically whether taking action can make the u.k. more of a target for iso-. the judgment of the
direct general of security service in the chairman of the joint intelligence committee is that the u.k. is already in the top tier of countries that isil is targeting. i am clear that the only way to deal with that reality is to address the threat we face, and do so now. mr. speaker, let me turn to the question of legality. it is a long-standing convention that we do not publish our legal advice but the document i published today shows in some detail the legal basis for military action against isis. it is founded on the right of self-defense as recognized in article 51 of the united nations charter. the right of self-defense may be exercised individually where it is necessary to the u.k.'s own defense. collectively, in the defense of our allies. the main basis of the global collections axes --
the collective self-defense of iraq, iraq has a legitimate one that we support and help your there is a solid basis of evidence on which to conclude that there is a direct link between the presence and activities of isil in syria and the ongoing attack in iraq and secondly, the assad regime is unwilling to take action necessary to prevent isil's continued attack on iraq or attacks on us. it is also clear that i saw's campaign against the u.k. and allies has reached the level of an armed attack, such that force may lawfully be used in self-defense to prevent further atrocities. this is further underscored by the unanimous adoption of a resolution. we should be clear about what this resolution means and what it says. ,he whole world came together
all five members of the security council to agree this resolution unanimously. isilesolution states that constitutes a global an unprecedented threat to international peace and security. it calls for member states to toe all necessary measures prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed by isil. crucially, it says that we haven eradicate the safe they have established over significant parts of iraq and syria. to enter the question of ground forces, in iraq, the answer is clear. we have a rocky security forces and kurdish forces. the situation is more complex in syria. we believe there are 70,000 syrian opposition fighters. who do not belong to extremist groups and with whom we can
coordinate attacks on isil. armed groupsdish who have also shown themselves capable of taking territory, holding territory, and administering it in relieving the suffering of the civilian population had endured. the kurds have successfully defended areas in northern syria and retaking territory around -- city the south of syria, the front of front of the army has consolidated its control over significant areas and has worked to prevent terrorists from operating. these people i have talked about our ground troops. they need our help. when they get it, they succeed. we should do more to help them
from the air. those who ask questions about ground troops are absolutely right to do so. the full answer cannot be achieved until there is a syrian government that represents all the syrian people, not just sunni, shia, that also christians and jews. it is his new government who will be the natural partners for our forces. we cannot defeat isil simply from the air with military action. it requires a full political settle. again, my answer is no we cannot. on the question is whether this part overall strategy the answer is yes. our approach has four pillars. first, our counter-extremism strategy means that we have a comprehensive plan to prevent and foil plots at home, and to address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat we face.
the second pillar is our support for the diplomatic and political process. we should be clear about that process. many people across this house have rightly said how vital it is to have all the key regional players around the table, including iran and russia. we are now seeing iran and saudi arabia sitting around the same table as america and russia, as well as france, turkey and britain. all of us are working towards the transition to a new government in syria. the third pillar is the military action that i am describing to degrade isil and reduce the threat it poses; it is working in iraq, and i believe that it can work in syria. the fourth pillar is immediate humanitarian support and, even more crucially, longer-term stabilisation. the house has heard many times that britain has so far given over £1.1 billionby far the largest commitment of any european country, and second only to the united states of america. that is helping to reduce the
need for syrians to attempt the perilous journey to europe. the donor conference that i am hosting in february together with germany, kuwait, norway and the un will help further. the house is rightly asking more questions about whether there will be a proper post-conflict reconstruction effort to support a new syrian government when they emerge. britain's answer to that question is absolutely yes. i can tell the house that britain would be prepared to contribute at least another £1 billion for that task. all these elementscounter-terrorism, political and diplomatic, military and humanitarianneed to happen together to achieve a long-term solution in syria. we know that peace is a process, not an event. i am clear that it cannot be achieved through a military assault on isil alone; it also requires the removal of assad through a political transition. but i am also clear about the sequencing that needs to take
place. this is an isil-first strategy. what of the end goal? the initial objective is to damage isil and reduce its capacity to do us harm. i believe that that can, in time, lead to its eradication. no one predicted isil's rise, and we should not accept that it is somehow impossible to bring it to an end. it is not what the people of iraq and syria want; it does not represent the true religion of islam; and it is losing ground in iraq, following losses in sinjar and baiji. we are not naive about the complexity of the task. it will require patience and persistence, and our work will not be complete until we have reached our true end goal, which is having governments in both iraq and syria who can command the confidence of all their peoples. in syria, that ultimately means a government without assad. as ban ki-moon has said: "missiles may kill terrorists.
but good governance kills terrorism." about the complexity of the -- that applies so clearly to both iraq and syria. as we discuss all these things, people also want to know that we have learned the lessons of previous conflicts. whatever anyone thought of the iraq war, terrible mistakes were made in the aftermath in dismantling the state and the institutions of that country. we must never make those mistakes again. the political process in syria will, in time, deliver new leadership, and that is the transition we must support. we are not in the business of dismantling the syrian state or its institutions. in libya, the state and its institutions had been hollowed out after 40 years of dictatorship. when the dictatorship went, the institutions rapidly collapsed. but the big difference between libya and syria is that in syria this time we have firm international commitment from all the backers of a future syrian government around the table at the vienna talks.
the commitment is clear, to preserve and develop the state in syria, and allow a new representative government to govern for all its people. mr. speaker, i have attempted to answer the main questions, why? why now? why us? is it legal? what are the ground forces? is there a strategy? what is the endpoint, and what is the plan for reconstruction? i know that this is a highly complex situation, and i know members on all sides will have complex questions which i look forward to trying to answer this morning. when will be a confusing situation in syria with regard to russia's intervention. mr. speaker, let me reassure the house that the american-led combined air operations centre has a memorandum of understanding with the russians. that enables daily contact and pragmatic military planning to ensure the safety of all coalition forces, and this would include our brave raf pilots. another question will be about whether we are taking sides in a
sunni versus shia conflict. this simply is not the case. yes, isil is a predominantly sunni organisation, but it is killing sunni and shia alike. our vision for the future of syria, as with iraq, is not a sectarian entity, but one that is governed in the interests of all its people. we wholeheartedly welcome the presence of states with both sunni and shi'a majorities at the vienna talks, and their support for international action both against isil and towards a diplomatic solution in syria. the house will also want to know what we are doing about the financing of isil. the document sets this out, and it includes intercepting smugglers, sealing borders, and enforcing sanctions to stop people trading with isil. ultimately, isil is able to generate income through its control of territory, so while we are working with international partners to squeeze the finances wherever we can, it is the rolling back of my soul's territory which --
isil's territory which will ultimately cut off its finances. two of the most complex questions in an undoubtedly complex situation are these. first, will acting against isil in syria help to bring about transition? i believe the answer is yes, not least because there cannot be genuine transition without maintaining the territorial integrity of syria. with its current actions, isil completely denies that integrity. crucially, destroying isil helps the moderate forces, and those moderate forces will be crucial to syria's future. secondly, does our view that assad must go help in the fight against isil, or as some claim, does this confuse the picture? the expert advice that i have could not be more clear, we will not beat isil if we waiver in our view that ultimately assad must go. we cannot win over majority sunni opinion, which is vital for the long-term stability of if we were to suddenly change our position. in the end it comes back to one main question, should we take action?
all those who say that ultimately we need a diplomatic solution and a transition to a new government in syria are right. working with a new representative government is the way to eradicate isil in syria in the long term, but can we wait for that to happen before we take military action? i say we cannot. let me be clear, there will not be a vote in this house unless there is a clear majority for action, because we will not hand a publicity coup to isil. mr. speaker, i also clear that am any motion we bring before this house will explicitly recognise that military action is not the whole answer. proud as i am of our incredible servicemen and women, i will not pretend or overstate the significance of our potential contribution. i will not understate the complexity of this issue, nor the risks that are inevitably involved in any military action,
but mr. speaker, we do face a fundamental threat to our security. we cannot wait for a political transition. we have to hit these terrorists in their heartlands right now, and we must not shirk our responsibility for security, or hand it to others. throughout our history, the united kingdom has stood up to defend our values and our way of life. we can, and we must, do so again. i commend this statement to the house. mr. corbyn: i thank the prime minister for providing an advance copy of his statement, which i received earlier today. after the despicable and horrific attacks in paris a fortnight ago, the whole house will i am sure agree that our first priority has to be the security of the people in the
future. so when we consider the prime minister's case for military action, the issue of whether what he proposes strengthens or undermines our security must be front and centre stage of our minds. there is no doubt that 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 that it poses a threat to our own people. the question must now be whether extending the u.k. 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. with that in mind, mr. speaker, i would like to put 7 questions to the prime minister. first, does the prime minister believe that extending air strikes to syria, which is already being bombed by the united states, france, russia, and other powers, will make a significant military impact on the ground, which has so far seen isil gain, as well as lose, territory?
does he expect it will be a war-winning strategy, or does he think other members of the original coalition, including the the gulf states, canada, and australia, have halted their participation? secondly, is the prime minister's view that the air campaign against isil-held areas can be successful without ground forces? if not, does he believe that the kurdish forces or the relatively marginal and remote free syrian army would be in a position to back up isil-held territory if the air campaign were successful? is it not more likely that other stronger, jihadist and radical salafist forces would take over? third, without credible or acceptable ground forces, is not the logic of an intensified air campaign mission creep and western boots on the ground? 10 he today rule out the deployment of british ground forces to syria?
fourth, does the prime minister believe that united nations security resolution 2249 gives clear and unambiguous authorization for u.k. air strikes? and, what coordinator the action tedgordon aged -- coordina action with other united nations member states has there been under the terms of the resolution to cut off funding, oil revenues, and armed supplies from isil into the territory it currently holds? and in the absence of any coordinated un military or diplomatic strategy, does he believe that more military forces over syria could increase the risks of dangerous incidents, such as the shooting down of a russian military aircraft by turkish forces this week? fifth, how does the prime minister think an extension of u.k. bombing would contribute to a comprehensive negotiated political settlement of the syrian civil war, which 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. sixth, what assessment has the prime minister been given about the likely impact of british air strikes in syria on the threat of terrorist attacks in britain? and, what impact does he believe an intensified air campaign will have on civilian casualties in the isis-held territory and the wider syrian refugee crisis, which is so enormous and so appalling? finally, mr. speaker, in the light of the record of western military intervention in recent years, including iraq, afghanistan, and libya, does the prime minister accept that uk bombing of syria could risk more of what president obama called unintended consequences, and that a lasting defeat of isil
can only be secured by syrians and their forces within the region? think the honorable gentleman for his questions. i very much respect his long-held views about these issues and his quite correct caution before committing to any of these actions, but i do believe that there is a good answer to the seven questions he asks. first, on whether extending airstrikes would have a significant military impact, i tried to give a flavour in my statement of the specific things we think we would be able to do. but in many ways, it is worth listening to our closest allies, the americans and the french, who want us to take part, not just for the cover that provides, but because of the capabilities we bring. it is worth listening very closely to what they say, so my answer is, yes, we would make a military difference.
secondly, he is absolutely right to raise the issue of ground forces, which i tried to tackle as fully as i could in my statement. i would just guide the house that there are obviously many who want to play down the existence and the role of the free syrian army. our information and intelligence is that there are at least 70,000 moderate sunni forces are -- sunni forces that are able to help. we can see the help they have given, and i provided some examples in my statement. he asked about boots on the ground. let me give an assurance that we are not deploying british combat forces, and we are not going to deploy british combat forces. we think that the presence of western boots on the ground in that way would be counter-productive. that is one thing that i think we have all, collectively across the house, learned from previous conflicts. we do not want to make that mistake again. the fourth question is whether the u.n. resolution is unambiguous. i believe it is. i think the language in the resolution is very clear, which is why i quoted it in some
detail. he rightly asked what else the un was doing on sanctions, embargoes, and squeezing the finances of isil. there was a resolution back in february, and we should continue to support all those measures. he asked about dangerous incidents and the potential for those. as i explained in the statement, there is a deconfliction between what russia is doing and what the coalition is doing. obviously, as i said yesterday, we have to get to the bottom of what happened in turkey, but we have permission to overfly turkish airspace, and turkey is our ally in this conflict. the fifth question, was whether what we are planning will help with transition. i think the answer is a very strong yes. the existence of isil, or daesh as many call it, with its so-called caliphate, is to deny the territorial integrity of both iraq and syria, so we cannot 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, we know that it is going to need the involvement of moderate sunnis, so the more we can help them, the better the chance of transition. he asked another very important question about the impact of action on the threat level to this country. that is why i quoted, and i have the permission to do so, i cleared my statement with them, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee and the head of mi5. their view is that we are already at the very highest level we could be when it comes to threats from isil. again, this is about learning the lessons of iraq. we have now this architecture of a joint intelligence committee chaired by a very senior official who has that independent view. i cleared every word of my statement, very clearly, with them. on the issue of civilian
casualties, i believe that the truth of the matter is that british capabilities provide one of the best ways to reduce civilian casualties. in a year and three months of the action we have taken in iraq, there have been no reports of civilian casualties. we believe that we have some of the most accurate weapons known to man. i think extending our activities into syria is likely to reduce civilian casualties rather than increase them. finally, he asked about unintended consequences and the recent history we have faced. we can have a bigger debate, i am sure, about the action we have had to take around the world. in my view, we have to recognize that this poisonous narrative of islamist extremism is a battle for our generation. we see it in nigeria, we see it in somalia, and, frankly, we see it sometimes in our own country. combating it with everything we have is not just combating it by military means, it's is combating it with argument, and
it is combating it by taking away grievances. it is all those things together. i believe that we have thought through the consequences of this action. in quoting president obama he did, i believe it is worth remembering that this american president, who saw that part of his role was withdrawing america from some of these foreign entanglements and trying to take a different approach to these actions, he is not only firmly behind american action in syria, he is asking america's oldest friend, partner, and ally to help out in this vital work. crispin blunt? crispin blunt: i thank my right honorable friend for responding so comprehensively to the foreign affairs committee report. let me also thank the chancellor, since he is present, for responding positively to our first report on the foreign office budget yesterday. part of the committee has returned early from the region --from the region around isil for the statement. while others are completing visits to 10 capitals in the
region over the week. acquiring a regional perspective is part of our inquiry into the coalition against isil, as was our initial report, which addressed the narrow issue of british air strikes over syria. behind that narrow issue sit the bigger questions of britain's full involvement in the coalition, and whether that coalition has a strategy to achieve the aim of defeating isil in syria and iraq. does he agree with the senior leaders whom we met in the region that getting the politics right in both iraq and syria is the immediate and overriding priority, and that we must not lose focus on baghdad? the committee will discuss its collective view early next week, and we will also want to report to the house on the prospects of success for the coalition strategy in the new year. will my right honorable friend come before the committee in about two months' time to give
evidence to us on the implementation of the strategy laid out today? but is he aware that in the light of vienna and in his response to the committee, it is now my personal view that, on balance, the country would be best served by the house supporting his judgment that the united kingdom should play -- [pandemonium sen. mcconnell] >> should play a full role in the coalition in order best to support and shape the politics, thus enabling the earliest military and eventual ideological defeat of isil to take place. >> i think my friend -- thank my honorable friend for coming back from the region to be with us in the house today, and i thank him for the report, but above all i thank him for what he has said about the decision he has reached in relation to the difficult decision we all have to make. i think he is absolutely right that any action we take must be nested in an overall strategy, which i have tried to set out today.
he is also absolutely right that the politics of the region are crucial in our understanding. most important of all, he is right about trying to ensure that iraq makes progress towards being a more pluralistic and solid country that does not face the risk of isil. as i have said, the politics and the action go together. he asked whether i would come back to his committee, and indeed to the house, within two months. i am very happy to come back in any way that people want me to, to gor, if we decide ahead with this action, whether to make a regular update to the house of commons or appear in front of his committee to go through detailed questions. i am in this, as in all things, the house's servant. angus robertson: i find -- thank the prime minister for giving me advance sight of his statement, and for the briefing we received from his national security adviser and colleagues last
night. given the seriousness of the issues with which we are all grappling, that briefing was soluble, and my right honorable member for gordon and i expressed our thanks to those who are working so hard to keep us all safe. we in the scottish national party share the concerns of everyone in the house and the country about the terrorist threat by daesh. we deplore the assad regime, and have repeatedly raised the issue of refugees both in the region and in europe. the snp strongly supports the international initiative in syria agreed in vienna to secure a ceasefire in syria and a transition to stable representative government, and to counter terrorist groups including daesh. we believe that these aims will be secured only through agreement and a serious, long-term commitment to syria. may i ask the prime minister, how is the uk supporting the international syria support initiative and other diplomatic efforts to secure that cease-fire in syria, the political transition, to combat terrorists such as daesh and to plan for long-term reconstruction, stability, and support? yesterday in prime minister's questions, i asked two questions about syria which the prime
minister did not answer, so i would like to repeat them today. how will the u.k. plan to secure peace on the ground in syria? as the house of foreign affairs committee asked, and i quote, which ground forces will take, hold, and administer territories captured from isil in syria? not can, but will? 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 front line against daesh, as opposed to countering syrian regime forces? how will the uk plan to secure long-term stability and reconstruction in syria? the uk spent 13 times more bombing libya than on its post-conflict stability and reconstruction. as i asked yesterday, how much does he estimate the total cost of reconstruction will be, and does he think that the amount in
his statement today will be sufficient? two years ago, the prime minister urged us to bomb daesh's opponents 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, and we have listened closely, but key questions posed by the foreign affairs select committee remain unanswered, and unless he answers them satisfactorily, the scottish national party will not vote for airstrikes in syria. david cameron: cannot first -- can i first pay him tribute to the national security adviser, mark lyall grant, who has been working hard to provide factual briefings, on a privy council basis, to parties across the house of commons. i think he is right that we require political agreement and syria's long-term
reconstruction. my argument is not that i disagree with that, my argument is as well as that, we need to take action now to protect us against the terrorism we have seen on the streets of paris and elsewhere. he asked a technical question about how we are supporting the negotiation initiative in vienna. obviously, we are playing a full part in it, through the foreign secretary, but also helping to fund the work of the un envoys trying to bring the parties together. and he asks, who were the troops on the ground. as i have explained, there are the free syrian army and the kurdish forces. that makes it a more complicated picture than iraq, where there are the iraq security forces, but these forces, we can help them to take and hold ground and to relieve suffering, as we have seen around kobani and with the yazidis. important progress can be made. i was very frank in my
statement. of course, the true arrival of ground forces awaits the arrival of a new government in syria. that is the best way to eradicate entirely isil. but the question comes up, can we wait for that to happen before we take some action that will degrade isil and its capabilities to do us harm? he asked about the long-term reconstruction of syria. as we debated yesterday with the autumn statement, we have one of the largest development budgets in the world, and i have already said we would be prepared to commit £1 billion to such reconstruction. i think the world would come together there was a new one government in syria, and the syrian people, many of whom are currently outside their country and desperate to go home, would not be left wanting for support. they would get the support of britain, but i believe they would get the support of the whole developed world. [agreement]
mr. clarke: the prime minister has made a compelling case for playing a proper part with our allies on both sides of the meaningless international border and for the political process, in which we can have a voice, of bringing the americans closer to the russians, and the saudis and turks closer to the iranians. does he accept, but -- that in the medium term we have to look for whatever agreement can produce stability and a more peaceful situation, and that we have to prepare ourselves for may something that falls far liberal, western democracy would look like echo is not the experience of the arab spring that going straight to democratic elections does not produce a resolution, that any agreement will have to involve some rather unpleasant people being involved, not just those who would naturally be our allies, and that assad and other people may have to be involved, because the big enemy is isil, which is dangerous and
which is not possible to engage in any political negotiations? [agreement] cameron: my friend speaks with great wisdom about these matters, and it is important to have his support. he has never been an unquestioning supporter of military action, and he thinks these things through very carefully. what he says about the future government of syria and the transition that needs to take place falling short of some of the democratic norms that we would want to see -- of course that is likely. when i say that i believe assad cannot be part of the long-term government of syria, in many ways that is not a political preference, in my view it is a statement of fact. there will not be a government of syria that can command the support of the syrian people if he is in charge of it, because of the blood that has been shed and because of what has happened in that country. but do i believe that a transition in syria will produce some perfect swiss-style democracy? of course it won't, but it might give us a partner with which we
can complete the obliteration of isil and therefore make us safer. remind him: may i that two years ago, he was equally eloquent in telling us how essential it was to bomb the assad regime? i believe that the decision taken by the house in 2013 was the correct one, and that had we followed his advice, the situation in syria would be even worse than it is now. let's say the prime minister agrees that the crux of the issue for every member of the house is this, would military action help to defeat isis? i happen to believe the answer is no. i wonder how many members really believe that it would make any real difference at all in defeating this hated death cult.
cameron: i do not particularly want to re-enter all the arguments about chemical weapons use. all i will say is that i of of course listen to his views, but i also think of the thousands of people, including children, who have been killed by assad's barrel bombs and chemical weapons since we held that vote. but he also asked the right question -- will this make us safer or not? will it help to degrade isil or not? it is the views of our closest allies, our military, our intelligence experts and those responsible for our domestic security, all those people are saying that we should take this action, as part of a coalition, to help make us safer. that is why i am bringing forward the statement, and with the support of the house, i will bring forward a vote. mr. mitchell: following the limited but important progress on the political track in vienna and the unanimous adoption by the united nations of resolution 2249 on isil, is it not clear
, mr. speaker, that the prime minister's considered response today is absolutely compelling? is this not the way in which we discharge our responsibility to protect innocent civilians, both here in the united kingdom and in syria? i am grateful for my right honorable friend's support. this is about discharging our responsibilities, chiefly to our own citizens. it is my considered view that this action will help, over time, to make us safer. we will never be safe while isil exists, while this so-called caliphate exists. we have demonstrated in iraq that we can take its territory , weekend destroy much of its infrastructure. we can make real progress, but we are hampered by not being able to do the same in syria. if we agree that the eradication of isil is essential for our national security, we should not put off the decision.
mr. howarth: i am sure that the prime minister is correct to say that the continued existence of the so-called caliphate is an inspiration to violence, extremists, not only in the middle east but even in our own country. could he perhaps gives some indication -- i know these things are still subject to negotiation -- about what the characteristics of a legitimate transitional government might be? p.m. cameron: first, let me agree with him about the so-called caliphate. as i tried to set out in my statement, there are the military objectives of trying to break up the terrorist training camps, infrastructure, and the terrorists themselves, but there is a bigger picture, which is that while this so-called caliphate exists, i do not believe we are safe. we should therefore be part of its dismantling. the question he asked about the characteristics of transition, this is what is being discussed in vienna, but it should start with ceasefires. it should then proceed to the
political work of drawing up what a transitional government followed by probably elections at some stage. this will be a perfect or scientific process. in the end it is political transitions that will allow us to complete the final destruction. military force cannot do it on its own. political and diplomatic and military solution. >> many honorable members agree crushedmust be close -- militarily in syria. as he acknowledged?
, they have got to be in coordination with credible ground forces. i have to say this is a revelation to me. and to many other members in this house. view, it depends on the participation of the syrian army. refuses to resign, which is the greater danger to our national security? or the continued expansion of isil? minister: there are many grounds of agreement between us. we agree it needs to be crushed.
that will mean the involvement of ground forces. strategy that isil is the greater threat to the united kingdom. area of disagreement is a technical point. not unbridgeable. what i said about 70,000 moderate forces is not my figure. opinion ofonsidered the joint intelligence committee. up toommittee was set avoid the mistakes we had in the past. is there considered view that beendocument has that entirely cleared by them. the best ground
troops should be the syrian army. is more likely to happen after a political transition has taken place in syria. the problem of believing it can be done with assad is that you will never get the cease-fires, you will never get the participation of the syrian majority while assad is still there. the disagreement is narrowing among britain, france, america and russia. we all see the necessity of a political and military solution. >> the prime minister has made a strong moral and legal case for defeating totalitarianism. the real question is the practical one. different russian
objectives in syria, how would he avoid giving support to a assad and avoid giving help to isil in its recruitment. minister: our target is isil, not the regime. helped if the sunni majority continue to believe that we believe syria requires a transition away from a side. objective, russia sees the danger of isil.
russia isence is that still attacking the moderate believeorces that we could be part of a genuine transition. we do have ways of de-conflicting. putin ath president the g20 meeting. the horrific attack on the airplane in cairo will bring home the necessity of the strategy. >> i congratulate my friend for his comprehensive approach and stressing that it is an isil first strategy. for the united kingdom not to act is itself a policy position that will have consequences. the