Strengthen its anti assad capability and bring him to the negotiating table something that we have been talking about for over three years. No one should be under any illusion that the attacks on innocent citizens in syria remain 99 the work of the syrian regime, which has now killed an estimated 170,000 of its own people, as against just a few hundred killed by isil. Mr. Speaker, war is a terrifying business, particularly for those who have experienced it. On occasions it is a necessary evil, but no matter how necessary, it is always ghastly and horrendous. It is with a feeling of depression and trepidation that i will be supporting the government tonight. Although i support the motion authorising military strikes on isil in iraq, and although i fully support my Party Leaders caution over extending it to syria without un backing, the blunt truth is that simply allowing isil to retreat across an invisible border, to them, that they control into syria to regroup is no answer. First, why British Military action against isils barbarity but not assads butchery . Should not the haunting and ill fated legacy of invading iraq instruct us to stay well clear . In the cabinet in 2003, i backed tony blair over iraq because i honestly believed that saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I was wrong. He did not. We went to a war on a lie, and the aftermath was disastrous. That has made me deeply allergic to anything similar in the region and certainly anything remotely hinting at cowboy western intervention. Does my right honorable friend also accept that the intervention in 2003 was welcomed by a lot of the people of iraq, particularly by the kurds . I agree absolutely. Even libya, supposedly a surgical operation consented to by this house in 2011, is hardly a good advertisement for us, with chaos now in the country. In supporting the motion, as i think broadly we are across the house, does the right honorable gentleman agree that one of the lessons from the 2003 intervention in iraq is that we should have designed in the reconstruction of iraq as a Democratic State from the outset, rather than leaving it till after we had achieved some military effect . Indeed. We tried to, but the americans took no notice, frankly. In the syrian horror from which isil has sprung, of course assads forces have unleashed waves of terror, but his jihadist opponents too have committed terrible atrocities. That is the context that has given birth to isil, not because the house prevented the Prime Minister from armouring moderate rebels in the free syrian army. Had the Prime Minister got his way last august, where might those british arms have ended up . Probably with isil. Instead of trying to bounce parliament into backing military strikes in syria last august, we should have been promoting a negotiated solution right from the beginning. That was always going to be the only way to get assad and, more importantly, his backers to shift towards compromise. Syria never was some simplistic battle between evil and good, between a barbaric dictator and his repressed people. It is a civil war, a quagmire into which britain should tread at dire peril. At its heart are the incendiary internal islamic conflicts sunni versus shia, and their chief protagonists and sponsors saudi arabia versus iran. There is also a cold war hangover, of the u. S. With all its considerable military and intelligence assets in the region versus russia, with its only mediterranean port and intelligence capability in syria. Even more crucially, assad is backed by 40 of his population. His ruling shia aligned alawites, fearful of being oppressed by the sunni majority, along with the kurds, christians and other minorities do not like his repressive baathist rule very much. They fear the alternative even more becoming victims. Of genocide, jihadism or sharia extremism. Assad was never going to be defeated militarily and he is not now. That is the truth. If western military intervention had somehow toppled him without a settlement in place, violent chaos on the syrian quicksand would still have ensued. The Arab League Envoy lakhdar brahimi, along with the un, set out a political solution, which should always have been the imperative. That means negotiating with assads regime, along with the russians and iranians standing behind him. Our failure to undertake that is a major reason why the civil war, in my view, has been so prolonged and why isil has been allowed to flourish. Medieval in its barbarism and its fanatical religious zeal, which views its own narrow wahhabi sect, dating from the 18th century, as possessing the sole truth, it uses that as the justification for exterminating both all its opponents and any other religious group blocking its way to establishing a caliphate. It has to be stopped and britain has the military surveillance and intelligence capabilities that those on the front line fighting isil do not. In northern iraq, only us air power at the request of the iraqi government, the kurds and the minorities facing genocide by isils remorseless advance, and very significantly, with the military participation of half a dozen nearby arab countries has knocked back isils well equipped army. It would not have happened otherwise. That iran gave its de facto if covert blessing is of significance, opening an opportunity for future engagement and collaboration which could be transformative for the whole region, israel palestine included. Britain should also help local iraqi and Kurdish Forces fighting isil with air strikes, drones, military equipment and other support. But not with troops on the ground. Countries in the region have to take ownership of this battle because isil threatens them all. But the elephant in the room, for me, remains syria. Isil will never be defeated if it is constantly allowed to regroup from its syrian bases. Without either un or Syrian Government authorisation, air strikes in syria may be illegal, although there could well be justification under International Law for such strikes, even without un agreement. And un authority for air strikes in syria will not be granted without assads and putins agreement maybe president rouhanis too. That is very difficult to many, very distasteful but very necessary. What is the alternative . Although syrias russian supplied air defences have been hit by the fighting, they are quite sophisticated. Even the u. S. Had to preinform damascus about the timing and location of its air strikes this past week or so. Yet engaging does not mean befriending. Rather, it is akin to what churchill said in 1941, if hitler invaded hell, he told his private secretary as germany readied to invade stalins russia, i would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the house of commons. Handled sensitively this could be an opportunity and i urge the Prime Minister to take it to kick start a proper syrian Peace Process and to defuse the longstanding, deep and inflammatory divisions among muslims. In the middle east iranians as shiites sponsoring hezbollah and other militias, saudis and qataris as sunnis sponsoring alqaeda and other jihadists including isil, where they have helped to unleash a monster that threatens to devour them all. By acting carefully, not bombastically, and by making common cause with both saudi arabia and iran to confront a common isil enemy, britain could even help realign middle east politics to overcome the bitter and violently corrosive sunnishia fault line in the region. It is a big ask, and an even bigger task, but an immensely valuable one. I do not think there is any significant controversy about the moral and legal case for what is proposed, and in five minutes i will not set it out. The world would be a better place if isis was destroyed, and britain would be a safer country without doubt. The legal case for intervention in iraq is clear with its governments inviting us, and i think it is pretty clear in syria because of the genocide and the humanitarian disasters being inflicted on that country. I do agree that it is artificial to divide the two problems, the sykespicot line is a theoretical line on the map now, and there is absolutely no doubt that isis has to be defeated in both countries. Given that one of the principles of Counter Insurgency is to deny the enemy a home base, is it not absolutely essential that we back the american efforts in syria . Otherwise, we will never defeat isis in iraq. For people to suggest that we cannot go to syria is actually tying our hands behind our backs. I agree with my honorable friend. President obama has been quite open that the alliance we are joining is going to launch attacks on isis in both syria and iraq, and it is unrealistic to proceed on any other basis. The real debate, to which i would like to contribute briefly, and which is the only issue for the vast majority of people in this house and for the vast majority of our constituents, is where are we going, what is the long term purpose, what is the strategy, and how are our foreign policy, our politics and our diplomacy going to be better on this occasion that they have been for the last 15 years . The disaster of past occasions is not that we attacked pleasant regimes, we attacked evil men when we attacked hussein, when we got rid of gaddafi, when we got rid of gaddafi, when we attacked alqaeda in afghanistan, and we would have been doing so if we had attacked assads chemical installations last year. It is no good going back. I supported two of those libya and syria last year. I was dubious about one of the others and i opposed iraq. That is not the point. What happened in all those cases was that the military deployment produced a situation at least as bad as it had been before and actually largely worse. I have no time, i am sorry. We did not create extremist jihadism. We did not create these fanatical, fundamentalist pressures, but we made things worse and made it easier for them to spread by some of our interventions. So we all agree that we must not repeat that. We need to be reassured, and i congratulate my right honorable friend the Prime Minister on his speech, where he spent a very great deal of his time trying to reassure. I am left with the feeling that certainly i shall support the motion, because some of our best allies are taking part in this intervention, but i still think that we are at the early stages of working out exactly where we are going. Our participation in these military attacks is almost symbolic. Six aircraft and our intelligence are no doubt valuable to our allies, but we are symbolically joining them. My main hope is that it gives us a positive influence on the diplomacy and the unfolding politics that have to take place to try to get together again, all sides seem to agree that this is necessary the widest possible participation and settlement between the great powers of the region, to get what we all want lasting stability and security in what at the moment is a very dangerous region of the world. I congratulate those who are responsible. Americans, no doubt, forgetting the sunni allies and the arab states into what is taking place. That makes a big difference from previous occasions, but all these things have problems. Saudi arabia, qatar and other arab states actually support other extremist islamist, sunni organisations, and they have to be persuaded not to. Isis is the worst of the sunni threats to the region, but it is not the only one, and its enemies include alqaeda and other groups as well. The participation of the shia is even more problematical, because there is no real shia engagement, and that takes us on to the crucial matter of iran. A lot of what is taking place in the region is a proxy struggle for power between iran and the shiites and the saudis and the sunni, and we revived ancient sectarian warfare that most sensible muslims the vast majority hoped was long since dead. Iran is a key influence because it is a close patron of assad in syria, of hezbollah and of the shiites in iraq, including the shiite militia, which is the only Effective Armed force at the moment for the so called iraqi government. Somebody has got to get the iranians and the saudis closer together to support moderation and to decide what stability replaces things. I am delighted that we have aligned ourselves with the kurds, but their aim of kurdistan makes problems. For turkey, and turkey is a key ally as well if we are to make any progress. I congratulate the Prime Minister on addressing all these things and on meeting rouhani for the first time, and i wish him well over the coming several years, because no genius will solve this problem in a very short time. Before i make my contribution today, i want us all to take a moment to think about and to pray for the hostages who are being held by is and the hostages who have been murdered in the most horrific circumstances, and i want us particularly to think today about alan henning. Alan is a taxi driver from eccles in salford. He is not a constituent of mine, but he lives very close to my home. Alan and his wife and family are in the thoughts and prayers of everybody in my city, everybody across the country and, i hope, everybody in this house. Alan went out to syria on a humanitarian mission to give aid to the men, women, children and babies who were being slaughtered. He was there as an ambassador from our country and today i make a personal plea to the people of is whether it falls on stony ground or not to release him. He should come home to be with his wife and family and the people who love him. A lot will be said today about military power, air strikes and troops on the ground, and i make it clear from the outset that i support the terms of the motion. If we simply take action in iraq and iis will go back into syria and we will be faced with a very serious problem. We may and well having to go into syria as well. Thatre we going to ensure theing syria does not have affect of strengthening . And much more sophisticated strategy than bombing syria. Makes anorable friend relative point. Most of us have been involved for years and we have seen unintended consequences and that is why a farsighted strategy of what to do and the impact and how we build resilience and coalitions will be essential. I want to thank the Prime Minister for the work he has done in building the alliances and the coalition, because it means we are in a significantly different place today than we have been in years past. I think that the idea of the west on its own america and britain taking a war to the middle east is completely wrong, and that the idea that the states on the ground, which have a personal responsibility for the safety of their own region, should take this action, with our support and backing, is absolutely right. I know how difficult it is to build those alliances, so i am thankful for that. I want to talk not about the military action, but the causes of terrorism, which i have mentioned many times in this house. Unless we deal with the root cause and the poisonous ideology being promulgated by the extremists who seek to groom vulnerable young people into extremism, we will find ourselves back here time and time again. Now is the moment at which we need to be really serious about this agenda. The latest estimate is that 3,000 people from the European Union alone have gone out to fight in iraq and syria. They are young, vulnerable men and women. People can be radicalised in all kinds of environments, including at home by their family, in a youth centre, increasingly on the internet and social media and, indeed, sometimes in religious institutions. It is very interesting that the home offices current estimate is that less than 2 of radicalisation is being carried out in religious institutions; actually it is happening in ungoverned spaces in parts of every single community. Will my right honorable friend put on record her interest in the work of the active change foundation in walthamstow . It not only set up the not in my name campaign, which both the Prime Minister and the president of the United States have talked about, but is doing exactly the kind of work my right honorable friend is talking about and which we should be doing more of. I am delighted to place on record my appreciation for that organisation and my honorable friends commitment. We have debated the prevent strategy many times in this chamber. In his statement on 1 september, i was delighted that the Prime Minister said we should be clear about the root cause of this threat a poisonous ideology of islamist extremism, a warped world view, and we should be clear that this has nothing to do with islam. I am grateful for that and for the many statements that religious people in this country, including imams, have made in response to atrocities. We are now beginning to move from condemnation to a proper narrative about the fact that such atrocities are not justified by the religion, but we have a long way to go. I urge the Prime Minister to be more courageous and to say that we need to support credible scholars to develop a view of islam in a modern day, 21st century democracy, where muslims are in a minority, that is more relevant to everyday life and that will protect and build the resilience of young people. That is difficult work and we will be accused of trying to tell people what to believe in their religion, which is not the place of a government in a democracy, but the work is urgent and needs to be done. I ask the Prime Minister and the home secretary to come back to this house with a proper plan for how we are going to conduct the counternarrative to the ideology. The home office has the research, information and communications unit, but it is small and is not doing the kind of Effective Work it could do. It needs to be bolstered and to take in the best ideas from all of our partners around the world in order to build a narrative, and that must be done in a practical way so that we can show people that this is not the future for our country. I usually give way to my honorable friend the member for birmingham, but i am afraid i do not have time now. I want to give two examples of why this work is so important. Members will probably have seen in todays newspapers the case of samira salih alnuaimi, who was a human rights lawyer in mosul. She was taken and brought before a Sharia Law Court and tortured for five days. She was sentenced to public execution and murdered on monday. She was a brave human rights lawyer. That is what a caliphate does and that is what this ideology is it is mediaeval and it is about Human Trafficking and exploitation. Secondly, there are people in this country like the young man from brighton whose mum said he was brainwashed. She had no idea and does not want other people to follow him. Those are the reasons i want to see the Prime Minister back here with a proper counternarrative ideology plan, and i will support him in that. I, too, remember the speech made by robin cook in 2003. I remember it with great admiration and perhaps a little emotion, not least, of course, because he resigned from the government as a result of his views and joined the rest of us who voted against them in the lobby that evening. This is not, however, 2003. It is an entirely different set of circumstances, an important feature of which is the fact that we would be responding to a request made by the lawful government of syria. I meant iraq. I have syria on the brain and will come back to it in a moment. The very existence of the government of iraq and, indeed, the country for which they are responsible is undoubtedly at stake. In my view, there is a legal basis it has been referred to by many of those who have already spoken for what we are being asked to endorse today. Given that air strikes alone will not achieve victory over isis, who has the plans and the determination to win on the ground now . That, i hope, is the product of the alliance that the United States, through president obama and the efforts of secretary of state john kerry, have been putting together. As an illustration of that commitment is the fact that five countries in the region have joined in to support the air strikes carried out so far. No, i am afraid that i must move on. No, i am afraid that i must move on. The circumstances faced by iraq are such that its very survival is at stake. It is important that we exercise a degree of responsibility in the matter. Although it is not the sole cause of the current circumstances in iraq, there is no doubt that the military action in which we joined with the United States against Saddam Hussein has been a major contributor to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Let me deal with the question of syria. I am content that were there to be a motion to the effect that we should take similar action in syria, there exists a proper and sound legal basis for such action. Indeed, the very factors that justify intervention in iraq would be of equal weight in relation to syria. Those are, to put it briefly, the barbarism that is being displayed, and the fact that regional stability is being heavily undermined. Let us remind ourselves that such undermining of stability has an impact on countries such as jordan, a close ally that would be a necessary component were there ever to be a global settlement for peace in the middle east. We must also recognise that the arab countries that have joined in have exercised a degree of responsibility in doing so. In many cases, they are taking on elements in their own countries that are opposed. How would any other country, faced with that decision, feel in the event that the motion that we are debating were not passed . It has been suggested that we need a United Nations resolution before we can embark on any action of the kind that is proposed, or indeed on similar action in relation to syria. We must accept the reality that the prospect of a United NationsSecurity Council resolution is totally remote. Indeed, even to put such a resolution on the table would be a wholly pointless exercise because of the attitude that would undoubtedly be taken by russia and possibly also by china. The language that has been used so far has been about destruction, but i am not sure that it is possible to destroy an ideology. I am not sure that it is possible to destroy a cult of the kind that now exercises such malign influence. One thing that we most certainly can do is to adopt a policy of containment and deterrence. To do that, we have to degrade its military capability and create circumstances in which any return to barbarism will be met by swift and effective action. I think we would do best to agree that we are not likely to embark on a successful process of destruction, but that we can have an effective doctrine of deterrence and containment. There is no parallel between todays debate and the debate on iraq in 2003, but there is a parallel with kosovo. When kosovo was an issue, with considerations similar to those that we are discussing not least ethnic cleansing the International Community was able to deal with the situation without a resolution. A lot has been said about the long term, but we do not have that luxury. Order. It is so easy to despair. In politics, especially, how often do we obsess about small differences rather than about the Biggest Challenges . Too often, we are interested by the internal workings of westminster power, and we stop looking outwards. We turn away from the world and in on ourselves, but that is a mistake. Our country is internationalist in outlook and, to us, all people matter, just as our neighbours and our families matter. People in iraq matter. The conflict has innocent victims who have been scared out of their homes women, men and children who take no part in violence but who will lose the most. Isil has executed a murderous and disastrouslyec