Back to Iraq

BRITAIN will take part in air strikes over Iraq after MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of joining the ongoing military action against ISIS.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the country had a "duty to take part" and that there was "no option to walk on by".

He added: "This is not the stuff of fantasy. It is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it."

Earlier this week, Mr Cameron had returned from his trip to the United Nations headquarters in New York to recall Parliament and raise a motion in favour of the strikes.

And, following a seven-hour debate in the House of Commons yesterday, the proposal was backed by the massive margin of 524 to 43.

That result stands in stark contrast to a similar vote just over a year ago. Back then, Mr Cameron embarrassingly lost in the Commons after proposing to take action against Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria.

This time, though, the mood in Westminster has been rather different. Assurances have been sought that Britain would not commit itself to ground troops or involve itself in the bombing of Syria - which, unlike Iraq, has not appealed for outside help.

And, with the wording of the motion confirming action was being restricted to air strikes over Iraq only, the outcome of the division was pretty obvious from the outset.

Of course, this decision to back military action comes after weeks and weeks of unremittingly grim news from the Middle East with ISIS having taken control of vast areas of Iraq and Syria.

More recently, the group has struck much closer to home, releasing a video this month of the beheading of British aid worker David Haines.

Another volunteer aid worker, Alan Henning from Eccles in Salford, remains in its clutches, his family this week having received an audio file of him pleading for his life.

Unsurprisingly then, it is not just the politicians who are in support of the strikes.

Recent polling shows that the British public are also now far more in favour of action against ISIS than they were of an intervention against Syria last year.

Yet, even these numbers show there is a fair proportion of people who remain war weary from the previous large-scale conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the campaign in Libya in 2011.

Dissenting MPs raised concerns in the debate and questioned the worryingly open-ended length of time which has been committed towards the campaign.

Mr Cameron admitted that the mission "will take not just months, but years" - while some of his other statements further seemed to raise the prospect of mission creep.

After all - if it had been up to the Conservative leader, then British forces would now be preparing to bomb Syria too. It was only a lack of consensus in the Commons which prevented this.

Remarkably then, for the third time in less than 24 years, it is Iraq which is the focus of a bombing campaign including British forces. 

Yes, of course, this is somewhat different to the 2003 invasion in terms of its legality and even in terms of its morality.

But that still does not mean the air strikes will necessarily actually work.

ISIS may now control large swathes of northern Iraq - however, it remains more of an idea and a belief system than a geographical area.

Arguably, the group has been borne out of a hatred of western intervention in Iraq and the wider Middle East.

And so, in this context, yet more air strikes can surely only be considered counter-productive in the long term.

Therefore, as sad and frustrating as it would have been, this was a time which Britain should have engaged in regrettable isolationism.

The engagement of Special Forces with highly specific missions to free trapped British hostages is surely something nobody reasonable would oppose.

But yet another general bombing campaign seems to be a depressingly simplistic fall-back option to a hideously complex problem.

Philosopher George Santayana once said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

It feels, at the moment, as if we seem condemned to repeat it to fade.

THE MOTION

"That this House:
- Condemns the barbaric acts of ISIL against the peoples of Iraq including the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians and Yazidi and the humanitarian crisis this is causing;
- Recognizes the clear threat ISIL pose to the territorial integrity of Iraq and the request from the Government of Iraq for military support from the international community and the specific request to the UK Government for such support;
- Further recognizes the threat ISIL poses to wider international security and the UK directly through its sponsorship of terrorist attacks and its murder of a British hostage;
- Acknowledges the broad coalition contributing to military support of the Government of Iraq, including countries throughout the Middle East;
- Further acknowledges the request of the Government of Iraq for international support to defend itself against the threat ISIL poses to Iraq and its citizens, and the clear legal basis that this provides for action in Iraq;
- Notes that this motion does not endorse UK air strikes in Syria as part of this campaign, and any proposal to do so would be subject to a separate vote in Parliament;
- Accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with allies, in supporting the Government of Iraq in protecting civilians and restoring its territorial integrity, including the use of UK air strikes to support Iraqi, including Kurdish, security forces’ efforts against ISIL in Iraq;
- Notes that Her Majesty’s Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations;
- Offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces."

VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION
Labour (23)
Diane Abbott, Graham Allen, Anne Begg, Ronnie Campbell, Martin Caton, Katy Clark, Ian Davidson, Paul Flynn, Stephen Hepburn, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Sian James, Mark Lazraowicz, John Mc Donnell, Iain McKenzie, Austin Mitchell, Grahame Morris, George Mudie, Linda Riordan, Barry Sheerman, Dennis Skinner, Graham Stringer, Mike Wood, Jeremy Corbyn (Teller).
Conservatives (6)
Richard Bacon, John Baron, Gordon Henderson, Adam Holloway, Nigel Mills, Mark Reckless
Lib Dems (1)
Julian Huppert
Scottish Nationalists (6)
Stewart Hosie, Angus Roberton, Mike Weir, Eilidh Whiteford, Angus Brendan McNeill, Pete Wishart (Teller) 
Others (7)
Mark Durkan, Alasdair McDonnell, Margaret Ritchie, Jonathan Edwards, Hywel Williams, George Galloway, Caroline Lucas

Cameron urged to step back on Syria

WAR drums are being beaten again as the Syria crisis gradually reaches its international tipping point - but any action will almost certainly not involve British forces.

Prime Minister David Cameron cut short his holiday in Cornwall and recalled Parliament to raise a motion supporting the principle of yet more military intervention in the Middle East.

But, embarrassingly for Mr Cameron, the vote in the House of Commons was surprisingly lost last night by 285 to 272 as MPs from all sides used their conscience and listened to the public.

For better or worse, and probably for better, the shadow of the Iraq war still looms large - and, as a Yougov poll demonstrated this week, there is little support in the country for another bombing campaign.

Indeed, 50% of respondents said they would oppose a missile attack while 25% supported the idea. Even Conservative voters were against the strikes by 45% to 33%.

Now, undoubtedly, there are some absolutely horrible things happening in Syria at the moment. You only have to see the news headlines and the television pictures of the people dying and suffering to work that out.

President Bashar al-Assad also appears to be a tyrant in trouble, willing to do anything to stay in power - and so it hardly takes a huge leap of logic to consider he would use chemical weapons on his opponents.

Importantly, though, from a British perspective, the actual situation on the ground in Syria remains as clear as mud. Was it definitely Assad who used the chemical weapons or was it the rebels using it to raise stakes and effectively invite Western intervention?

For his part, even Mr Cameron admitted in the debate before the division that there was no "one smoking piece of intelligence" which made it 100% certain the Assad regime was behind the atrocity.

At least this represented a more honest presentation than the one delivered by Tony Blair a decade ago about Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.

Nevertheless, it was only the result of an intervention by Labour leader Ed Miliband which prevented Mr Cameron from ordering immediate military strikes.

The Prime Minister was also forced to back down and perform perhaps his biggest U-turn yet after deep reservations about rushing a decision were also raised by his own backbenchers.

In fact, with about 30 Labour MPs absent, it was then those very same backbenchers who caused him to be defeated last night.

Notably, the BBC political correspondent Iain Watson had mentioned earlier on Twitter: "Senior conservatives saying to me that [the] chief whip misread the mood of the party on Syria".

And so it came to pass. Mr Cameron, while obviously disappointed, was left in no position other than to respect the wishes of Parliament.

Thus, the vote has become a momentous, historical, shift in power away from the executive to the legislature.

Of course, theoretically, Prime Ministers do not need the support of the Commons to go to war. Realistically, from now on though, any future PM would need to consult Parliament for approval.

It is difficult to see that happening any time soon - as while, doubtless, the MPs who voted against intervening last night did so with a heavy conscience, it has been decided that British forces have been in enough conflict recently.

That will not necessarily stop the United States, of course - although Assad's long-time ally Russia seems sure to have something to say about any use of force.

Already, both ex-Cold War adversaries have sent warships to the Mediterranean while holding discussions with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council.

But, increasingly, it looks as if no resolution will come from the Security Council unless Russia and China abstain as they did for Libya, rather than use their veto.

If the vetoes were used on this occasion, and the USA (and other Western powers such as France) still launched missiles amid a civil war in Syria, it would surely only further worsen the situation there.

Bombs to stop bombs has rarely been the right answer in recent times.

And so, while it is a pipe dream at the moment, my final wishes on this posting must be simply to hope Syria - and indeed the wider Middle East - will eventually find peace.

It has to happen someday.

WHEN PARLIAMENT HITS BACK
Full list of 285 MPs who voted against the principle of military action in Syria
Conservative (30) David Amess, Steve Baker, Richard Bacon, John Baron, Andrew Bingham, Crispin Blunt, Fiona Bruce, Tracey Crouch, David TC Davies, Philip Davies, David Davis, Nick de Bois, Richard Drax, Gordon Henderson, Philip Hollobone, Adam Holloway, Dr Phillip Lee, Dr Julian Lewis, Tim Loughton, Jason McCartney, Nigel Mills, Anne Marie Morris, Andrew Percy, Sir Richard Shepherd, Sir Peter Tapsell, Andrew Turner, Martin Vickers, Charles Walker, Chris White, Dr Sarah Wollaston 
Labour (224) Diane Abbott, Debbie Abrahams, Bob Ainsworth, Douglas Alexander, Heidi Alexander, Rushanara Ali, Graham Allen, David Anderson, Jonathan Ashworth, Adrian Bailey, William Bain, Ed Balls, Gordon Banks, Kevin Barron, Hugh Bayley, Margaret Beckett, Anne Begg, Hilary Benn, Joe Benton, Luciana Berger, Clive Betts, Gordon Birtwistle, Tom Blenkinsop, David Blunkett, Kevin Brennan, Lyn Brown, Nicholas Brown, Russell Brown, Chris Bryant, Karen Buck, Andy Burnham, Liam Byrne, Alan Campbell, Ronnie Campbell, Martin Caton, Jenny Chapman, Katy Clark, Tom Clarke, Vernon Coaker, Ann Coffey, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn, Mary Creagh, Stella Creasy, Jon Cruddas, Alex Cunningham, Jim Cunningham, Tony Cunningham, Margaret Curran, Simon Danczuk, Alistair Darling, Wayne David, Gloria De Piero, John Denham, Jim Dobbin, Frank Dobson, Thomas Docherty, Frank Doran, Stephen Doughty, Jim Dowd, Gemma Doyle, Jack Dromey, Michael Dugher, Angela Eagle, Maria Eagle, Clive Efford, Julie Elliott, Louise Ellman, Natascha Engel, Bill Esterson, Chris Evans, Paul Farrelly, Frank Field, Jim Fitzpatrick, Robert Flello, Caroline Flint, Paul Flynn, Hywel Francis, Mike Gapes, Barry Gardiner, Sheila Gilmore, Pat Glass, Mary Glindon, Roger Godsiff, Paul Goggins, Helen Goodman, Tom Greatrex, Kate Green, Nia Griffith, Andrew Gwynne, David Hamilton, Fabian Hamilton, Harriet Harman, Tom Harris, Dai Havard, John Healey, Mark Hendrick, Stephen Hepburn, Meg Hillier, Margaret Hodge, Kate Hoey, Jim Hood, Kelvin Hopkins, George Howarth, Tristram Hunt, Huw Irranca-Davies, Glenda Jackson, Sian James, Cathy Jamieson, Dan Jarvis, Alan Johnson, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Kevan Jones, Susan Elan Jones, Tessa Jowell, Eric Joyce, Gerald Kaufman, Liz Kendall, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Ian Lavery, Mark Lazarowicz, Chris Leslie, Emma Lewell-Buck, Ivan Lewis, Ian Lucas, Fiona Mactaggart, Khalid Mahmood, Shabana Mahmood, Seema Malhotra, John Mann, Gordon Marsden, Steve McCabe, Michael McCann, Kerry McCarthy, Gregg McClymont, Andy McDonald, John McDonnell, Pat McFadden, Alison McGovern, Jim McGovern, Anne McGuire, Ann McKechin, Iain McKenzie, Catherine McKinnell, Michael Meacher, Alan Meale, Edward Miliband, Andrew Miller, Madeleine Moon, Jessica Morden, Graeme Morrice, Grahame M. Morris, George Mudie, Jim Murphy, Paul Murphy, Ian Murray, Lisa Nandy, Pamela Nash, Fiona O'Donnell, Chi Onwurah, Sandra Osborne, Albert Owen, Teresa Pearce, Toby Perkins, Bridget Phillipson, Stephen Pound, Lucy Powell, Nick Raynsford, Jamie Reed, Steve Reed, Rachel Reeves, Jonathan Reynolds, Linda Riordan, John Robertson, Geoffrey Robinson, Steve Rotheram, Frank Roy, Lindsay Roy, Chris Ruane, Joan Ruddock, Anas Sarwar, Andy Sawford, Alison Seabeck, Virenda Sharman, Barry Sheerman, Jim Sheridan, Gavin Shuker, Dennis Skinner, Andy Slaughter, Andrew Smith, Nick Smith, Owen Smith, Jack Straw, Graham Stringer, Gisela Stuart, Gerry Sutcliffe, Mark Tami, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Stephen Timms, Jon Trickett, Derek Twigg, Stephen Twigg, Chuka Umunna, Keith Vaz, Valerie Vaz, Joan Walley, Tom Watson, Dave Watts, Dr Alan Whitehead, Chris Williamson, Phil Wilson, David Winnick, Rosie Winteron, Mike Wood, David Wright, Iain Wright
Liberal Democrats (9) Paul Burstow, Mike Crockart, Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Julian Huppert, Dan Rogerson, Andrew Stunell, Ian Swales, Sarah Teather, Roger Williams
Scottish & Welsh Nationalists (9) Jonathan Edwards, Stewart Hosie, Elfyn Llwyd, Angus MacNeil, Angus Robertson, Mike Weir, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Hywel Williams, Pete Wishart
Various Northern Irish MPs (7) Gregory Campbell, Nigel Dodds, Jeffrey Donaldson, Brian Donohoe, Mark Durkan, Lady Hermon, Naomi Long, Alasdair McDonnell, Margaret Ritchie, Jim Shannon, Sammy Wilson
Others (2) George Galloway, Caroline Lucas

Romney wins narrowest Iowa vote in history*

Iowa caucuses
1 Mitt Romney 30,015 (24.62%)
2 Rick Santorum 30,007 (24.61%)
3 Ron Paul 26,219 (21.51%)
4 Newt Gingrich 16,251 (13.33%)
5 Rick Perry 12,604 (10.34%)
6 Michele Bachmann 6,073 (4.98%)

REPUBLICAN presidential hopeful Mitt Romney leads the race for his party's nomination after an important early win in the Iowa caucuses(*see postscript at the end of this article).

Former Massachusetts governor Mr Romney (24.62%) won by just eight votes from Rick Santorum (24.61%). Ron Paul, on 21.5%, was trailing in third.

Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, managed only 13.3% but he still finished ahead of Rick Perry (10.3%) and Michele Bachmann (5%).

Front-runner Mr Romney will hope this is the first of many poll wins as he seeks the approval of the Republican party ahead of the National Convention in Tampa, Florida in August.

There, one of the contenders will be confirmed as the candidate who will run against incumbent Democrat President Barack Obama in November.

It should be noted that Iowa is important only because it is first. It is not first because it is particularly important.

The Mid-west state has only a small number of delegates and technically no delegates were elected today anyway, only delegates to county conventions who in turn elect delegates to an Iowa State Convention.

Nevertheless, even a narrow victory comes as welcome news to Mr Romney who will now carry momentum into the next contest on 10 January in New Hampshire, where he already holds a big lead.

If the multi-millionaire businessman wins there, as expected, he would become the first ever Republican candidate to carry both Iowa and New Hampshire in the caucuses and primaries.

And that would give him a huge boost heading into Super Tuesday on 6 March when no fewer than 10 states will vote in primaries and caucuses.

It is perhaps no surprise that Mr Romney has emerged as the front-runner given his ability to appeal to moderates and independents.

However, his success has caused a crisis on the conservative right of the Grand Old Party.

This political nightmare for the right has been exacerbated by their sheer inability to settle on an 'Anyone But Romney' ticket amid wave upon wave of negative campaigning.

Ms Bachmann was the first to sit atop the merry go-round. Backed by the Tea Party movement, her support peaked last July before she was overshadowed by Mr Perry’s entry to the race.

Mr Perry then faded after poor performances in debates, and he was replaced in turn by the pizza magnate Herman Cain.

Mr Cain surged in October, but support soon fell away after he became embroiled in allegations of sexual harassment, leading to his withdrawal at the start of last month.

Next, Mr Gingrich briefly challenged Mr Romney in the polls - but, having been married three times and admitted adultery, the former struggled to compete with Mr Romney's apparently clean-cut image.

And so we finally reach the present situation where Mr Romney's closest rivals are Mr Santorum and Mr Paul. Even for Mr Santorum and Mr Paul, this has been a bumpy ride, though.

Mr Santorum has come under fire from small government exponent Mr Paul for being a big spender. The 76-year-old Mr Paul has had to contend with the revelation that racially-offensive newsletters were published in his name.

Mr Paul claims not to have read them, never mind written them, but it is little wonder that the Republicans are being cast as a bunch of loons by some in the British media.

On that basis, then, you would think that this contest would be rather irrelevant, only choosing who loses the general election to Mr Obama.

Not so. For the Republicans' crisis of confidence is actually borne out of a belief that they can beat Mr Obama whose popularity ratings have been consistently poor.

Mr Obama enjoyed positive approval for the first few months of his presidency as he vowed to clear up the mess left at home and abroad by his predecessor, George W Bush.

But the honeymoon period did not last long and, having been elected with a mandate to change America and provide a fresh start, Mr Obama has disappointed at best, and failed at worst.

Dealt a poor hand by the world economic situation, he has had to deal with high unemployment while his flagship healthcare reforms were watered down at the request of members of his own party.

Subsequently, the Democrats lost control of the House in the mid-term elections, though it could have been worse: they did at least retain control in the Senate.

Abroad, Mr Obama took a risk by involving US forces in another war by bombing Libya, and troops remain in Afghanistan.

Moreover, the increased dropping of drone bombs on Pakistan has caused a breakdown in diplomatic relations there, and his promise to close down Guantanamo Bay has still yet to be fulfilled.

On the positive side, US troops are finally out of Iraq, and the president will also receive credit for the removal in 2011 of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden.

The latter resulted in wild celebrations from liberals and conservatives alike, coming as it did just months before 10th anniversary of 9/11.

It definitely represented a high point for the Obama administration so far but will it be enough for him to secure a second term?

Looking at the candidates for the GOP again, Mr Romney - as the most moderate - is probably best placed to go up against Mr Obama in the autumn.

But, if the challenger cannot even guarantee votes from his own fractious party, Mr Obama will not be sitting too nervously just yet - regardless of what his personal ratings currently show.

*POSTSCRIPT (added 19/01/2012)
(See entry at 10.25am on Guardian liveblog for South Carolina primary)
At a news conference on 19 January, the Iowa Republican Party announced that, of the votes that could be counted, Rick Santorum (29,839) actually had 34 more than Mitt Romney (29,805) in the final tally. Ron Paul (26,036) was still in third place.
However, no official winner has yet been renamed for the state because results from eight of the Iowa's 1,774 precincts are missing.

2012 PRIMARY/CAUCUS SCHEDULE
KEY DATES
3 January Iowa (caucus) - no official winner

10 January New Hampshire (primary) - Mitt Romney

21 January South Carolina (primary)
31 January Florida (primary)

4 February Nevada (caucus)
4-11 February Maine (caucus)
7 February Colorado (caucus), Minnesota (caucus)
28 February Arizona (primary), Michigan (primary)

3 March Washington (caucus)
6 March: Super Tuesday Alaska (caucus), Georgia (primary), Idaho (caucus), Massachusetts (primary), North Dakota (caucus), Ohio (primary), Oklahoma (primary), Tennessee (primary), Vermont (primary), Virginia (primary)
6-10 March Wyoming (caucus)
10 March Kansas (caucus), US Virgin Islands (caucus)
13 March Alabama (primary), Hawaii (caucus), Mississippi (primary)
17 March Missouri (caucus)
20 March Illinois (primary)
24 March Louisiana (primary)

3 April District of Columbia (primary), Maryland (primary), Wisconsin (primary), Texas (primary)
24 April Connecticut (primary), Delaware (primary), New York (primary), Pennsylvania (primary), Rhode Island (primary)

8 May Indiana (primary), North Carolina (primary), West Virginia (primary)
15 May Nebraska (primary), Oregon (primary)
22 May Arkansas (primary), Kentucky (primary)

5 June California (primary), Montana (primary), New Jersey (primary), New Mexico (primary), South Dakota (primary)
26 June Utah (primary)

27-30 August REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION Tampa, Florida
3-6 September DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION Charlotte, North Carolina

Index 2011

FOOTBALL
Season 2010/11
08.01 FA Cup Third Round: Ronnie f*cking Radford, Immortalised
10.01 Club-by-club half-time verdict
24.01 Berbatov hits another treble
16.02 Rooney reduces Manchester United's title rivals to one
27.02 Carling Cup: Martins benefits from last-minute Arsenal mix-up
04.04 Rooney banned for hat-trick rant as Manchester United move in on title
16.04 FA Cup Semis: Manchester City and Stoke City end their long wait
03.05 Chelsea eye chance to take title lead
14.05 FA Cup Final: Toure strikes as Manchester City end their barren run
19.05 Survival Sunday calculations
24.05 Birmingham and Blackpool drop in dramatic finale
31.05 Swans soar after Sinclair hat-trick
Season 2011/12
06.08 The Championship 2011/12
13.08 The Premier League 2011/12
30.08 Manchester clubs make big early impression
20.12 All eyes on Manchester at the halfway stage
Euro 2012
25.03 All to easy for England in Cardiff
03.06 England escape with draw against Swiss
02.09 Deutschland uber alles
06.09 Narrow win edges England closer
07.10 Rooney sees red as England qualify
11.10 Scotland slump out while Irish enjoy the rub of the green
16.11 Ireland exorcise playoff hoodoo
02.12 Finals draw
FIFA
01.06 Blatter gets four more years
30.07 World Cup 2014: England draw both Euro hosts
11.11 FIFA were wrong in poppy wrangle
Copa America
01.07 Argentina hope home advantage ends 18-year wait
25.07 Suarez and Forlan fire Uruguay to victory

CRICKET
End of Ashes series 2010/11
03.01 England win Ashes series after handing out another thumping
07.01 Statistics show England dominance
05.02 Australia win the One-Dayers. No one notices.
Cricket World Cup
18.02 Group A preview
18.02 Group B preview
19.02 Full results
02.03 Record-breaker O'Brien helps incredible Ireland beat bungling England
11.03 Bangladesh defeat leaves England hopes on a knife edge
20.03 England progress against Windies as Aussie run ends
30.03 Co-hosts battle for world crown
02.04 Dhoni leads India to World Cup glory
Summer 2011
26.05 England face finalists in tough summer schedule
09.07 England scrape Sri Lanka series wins
23.08 England whitewash India to seal number one spot
04.11 Pakistan cricket scam puts ICC in the dock

FORMULA 1 2011
19.04 Hamilton halts Vettel's speedy start
31.05 Vettel streaks clear as Hamilton snaps
14.06 Senna-sational
10.07 Alonso seals Silverstone win but Red Bull retain control
29.07 BBC breaks the chain
04.08 Button excels in the wet again
13.10 Vettel completes the inevitable: stats
29.11 Team-by-team review

RUGBY WORLD CUP
08.09 Preview: Can New Zealand hold their nerve?
09.09 Complete results and fixtures
01.10 England break Scotland's brave hearts
09.10 England flop to France - Wales, Wallabies and All Blacks advance
15.10 New Zealand face yet another French test
24.10 New Zealand end 24 years of hurt

WORLD SNOOKER
15.04 Odds against Robertson and the Rocket
25.04 Selby breezes into the quarters
01.05 Trump fairytale faces Final test
01.05 Higgins holds his nerve to win fourth Crucible title

OLYMPICS/ATHLETICS/SPORTS PERSONALITY
21.04 BOA backs down in funding wrangle
18.05 Detailed torch route announced
28.07 One year to go
04.09 Mo Farah flies to join Greene with gold
22.12 Manx Missile Cavendish odds-on for SPOTY prize

NON-SPORTS COVERAGE
MEDIA
27.01 Gray and Keys over-step the line in NewsCorp's annus horribilis
01.04 Ah, tits! Daily Sport goes bust
25.05 Superinjunction farce leaves Giggs exposed
06.07 How low can the News of the World go?
19.07 Murdoch empire starts to fall apart
27.10 Private Eye still packs a punch at 50

POLITICS
May elections
21.02 AV debate divides opinion
05.05 Full results: AV referendum and English councils
05.05 Full results: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
07.05 UK rejects AV as Lib Dems crumble
Party conferences
21.09 Fighting talk from the Lib Dems has come too late
30.09 Miliband still struggling to make an impression
06.10 Cat fight overshadows Conservative conference
Other events
14.01 Miliband makes his breakthrough in Oldham
21.01 Resignation season
04.03 Barnsley Central destroys last remnants of Clegg's credibility
21.03 MPs back Libya action but confusion reigns over Resolution 1973
23.03 Osborne will not be judged on this Budget
08.08 London's burning
15.10 Fox falls on his sword
17.12 Labour relief at Feltham result

MUSIC
14.05 Eurovision: Azerbaijan surprise leaves Britain feeling Blue
20.06 Glastonbury and the Hyde Park hiatus
04.07 Glastonbury and Hyde Park: Mud, sweat and beers
26.12 Merry Christmas to the Military Wives

MISCELLANEOUS
11.02 Best foot forward
09.04 Grand National: McCain legacy continues with Ballabriggs victory
27.04 25 years on, Chernobyl continues to cast its shadow
27.04 The alternative Royal Wedding
09.06 Gannin' alang the Scotswood Road
11.11 Remembrance Day, lest we forget
31.12 Index 2011

MPs back Libya action but confusion reigns over Resolution 1973

PROPOSED MOTION
That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Result: Ayes (for) 557 Noes (against) 13 Majority 544

557 Ayes: See Hansard
13 Noes:
Con John Baron (Basildon & Billericay)
Lab Graham Allen (Nottingham North), Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North), Barry Gardiner (Brent North), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green), John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington), Linda Riordan (Halifax), Dennis Skinner (Bolsover), Mike Wood (Batley and Spen), Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran), Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South-East),
Green Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion),
SDLP Mark Durkan (Foyle), Margaret Ritchie (Down South)


MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of military action in Libya but confusion reigned during yesterday's six-hour debate over the extent of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Resolution 1973, passed in an emergency meeting of the Security Council on Thursday, was backed by 557 members and opposed by just 13 for a thumping 544 majority.

But, as bombs fall over the Libyan capital Tripoli for a third night, the ultimate aim of Operation Odyssey Dawn depends upon to whom you are speaking.

Today's front page of the Independent newspaper had it just about right with a series of flags and statements above the headline "The disunited nations".

Unsurprisingly, the biggest international criticism has come from Russia and China who both abstained during Thursday's vote, passing up their right as permanent members to use a veto.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has compared the air strikes on Libya to the Crusades while Chinese state media condemned "armed actions against a sovereign country". Both have called for an immediate ceasefire.

However, a more worrying concern has come form the head of the Arab League, which requested Western involvement in the first place.

Amr Moussa has called for civilians to be "protected, not bombarded" while Turkey PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned that the operation must not turn into an occupation.

In a move also supported by the French and Germans, Mr Erdogan has also called on the UN to lead the mission rather than the exercise turn into a NATO-led military one.

But, conversely, Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini has threatened to withdraw authorisation for the use of its military bases if the airstrikes do not come under NATO command.

And yesterday President Barack Obama confirmed the US would reduce its role "within days" in favour of a NATO-led campaign.

Undeniably, the shadow of Iraq and lack of international support for that campaign casts itself long over this new episode.

American nerves will not have been helped by this morning's pictures of a crashed US warplane although both airmen are confirmed as having been rescued.

Mr Obama had already appeared reluctant to take any action until calls by Britain and France were supplemented by the Arab League.

And, back in Britain, concerns were also raised in a six-hour House of Commons debate that this operation does not become another Iraq.

Prime Minister David Cameron denied that this would be the case, and said: "A successful outcome [of this campaign] is the enforcement of the will of the UN, which is a cease of attacks on civilians.

"In Iraq, we had been prepared to go into a country, to knock over its government and put something else in place. That is not the approach we are taking here."

He was supported by Labour leader Ed Miliband who said: "Where there is just cause, where there is reasonable action that can be taken, where there is international consent - are we really saying we should be a country that stands by and does nothing?"

But Scottish and Welsh nationalist party leaders also raised concerns over the open-ended statement in the Resolution which refers to "all necessary measures short of an occupation force".

SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson told the government to "address concerns about an open-ended commitment and the potential for mission creep."

And Elfyn Llwyd, leader of Plaid Cymru, said: "We are concerned the clear wording of resolution 1973 might become clouded and this whole matter could be a smokescreen or shorthand for regime change."

However, the biggest criticism of the day came from Green Party leader Caroline Lucas.

Ms Lucas suggested that while the action may have at least gone through the UN this time, the UK itself lacks the moral high ground to intervene.

She said: "We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point.

"We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate."

Ms Lucas is correct in what she says about the UK's role in the grubby world of arms dealing in which Mr Cameron was recently implicated after details of a six-figure party donation.

But, surely the greater crime at this stage last week, would have been to allow the unhinged Colonal Gaddafi to massacre his own people in Benghazi.

For that reason, I agree that the Resolution had to be passed and a no-fly zone over Libya established.

However, like the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, I remain worried about the open-ended nature of the statement in the UN Security Resolution 1973.

The US has repeatedly said so far that Col Gaddafi himself is not a target and that it has no desire to enact regime change.

That does not appear consistent, though, with the bombing of an administrative building in central Tripoli.

It is no surprise that some nations who supported the action originally are already becoming slightly nervous.

Of course, the most vital of these parties is undoubtedly the Arab League. Lose the support of them and this operation will effectively become the Western Crusade which Col Gaddafi claims that it already is.

Surely the way forward from this point is to continue to extend the no fly-zone but tone down the aerial attacks. Certainly, there can be no good reason to bomb central Tripoli again.

After that has been established and enforced, it would be then up to Col Gaddafi and the rebels to sort out their differences - and hopefully through mediation and not a continuation of this bloody civil war.