British warplanes could be dropping bombs on Islamic State targets in Syria within 72 hours if Prime Minister David Cameron gets his way in a key vote on Wednesday.
The expansion of the British anti-ISIS mission is being hotly debated in parliament, a move that has split the opposition and brought back the specter of previous Middle Eastern interventions.
Despite the small size of the UK and its forces, analysts say its contribution will have ramifications for the intractable Syrian conflict.
Though parliamentary approval is not strictly necessary, custom holds that the British government will not commit to military operations without the approval of the House of Commons.
This fact was made stark when Prime Minister David Cameron’s government was defeated over a 2013 motion to launch airstrikes against the Syrian army, following the regime’s use of chemical weapons.
This failed bid, ten years after a now discredited parliamentary vote which approved British participation in the invasion of Iraq, are in the background of today’s vote.
Repeatedly Cameron asserted that he would not hold a vote unless he was assured a majority, not wishing to hand the Islamic State (ISIS) a propaganda victory.
Cameron’s government is expected to win with a majority of about 50 seats despite facing rebels from within its own ranks, and holding a majority of only 16 seats due to some support from the opposition.
British Royal Air Force (RAF) warplanes have been conducting airstrikes against ISIS locations in Iraq alongside the United States for the past year and a half, but until now have kept their overt operations over Syria to reconnaissance and intelligence gathering.
France and the United States hope the additional airpower and diplomatic support provided by Britain, permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, will boost the international coalition’s legitimacy in the fight against ISIS. Saudi Arabia, among other Western allies in the Persian Gulf, has shifted its focus away from Syria, in recent months, and on to Yemen, with which it shares a border.
The Paris terror attacks of November 13, that killed 130 people, mostly Europeans, for which ISIS took responsibility, have changed the views of European Union governments that were previously reluctant to join the anti-ISIS coalition.
On Tuesday, the German cabinet approved a move to provide military support to the anti-ISIS coalition, which now awaits parliamentary approval.
“The German cabinet has just passed a decision to become involved. This is a sign of greater engagement in Syria,” said David Butter, a Middle East analyst and associated fellow at Chatham House, in conversation with The Media Line.
In addition, Butter said, the RAF’s experience and technical equipment will provide a “qualitative edge,” even if its numbers are limited. British air prowess is highly regarded among American veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, where the two forces fought together.
What the air strikes can or will achieve remains an open question.
David Davis, a Conservative Party member of parliament opposed to the strikes and a former member of the UK’s Special Forces, pointed out in an interview on British radio that “any fight you take on has to have an end.”
Other skeptics caution about the lack of partners among the myriad rebel groups fighting Syria’s President Bashar Assad. Reinoud Leenders, who teaches international relations and Middle East Studies at King’s College London, is concerned that governments are using airstrikes demonstratively, merely “to appear to be acting.”
“The increased willingness to take part in airstrikes from Britain and others, I see it more as a substitute for providing ground troops or significant support to allies on the ground,” Leenders told The Media Line.
In order to secure a credible ally to fight the ground war, collaboration with Syria’s rebels is necessary, with potential partners vetted appropriately, Leenders argued.