British Prime Minister David Cameron’s high-profile defeat after seeking parliamentary authorization for a war against Syria in 2013 may still sting, but his government still insists they are hoping to eventually hold another vote seeking the same authorization they failed to get last time.
Spokeswoman Helen Bower denied media reports that the Cameron government was close to scrapping the planned vote outright, saying Cameron still wants to eventually have the vote but Russia’s involvement in Syria is a “complicating factor.”
The more complicating factor, however, is the lack of political support for another war, with the vehemently antiwar Jeremy Corbyn now leading the Labor Party, and likely to put even more effort into blocking the effort than his predecessors would.
Despite parliament explicitly barring Britain from any strikes against Syria, the Cameron government has occasionally launched strikes against ISIS inside Syria, claiming those warplanes were “embedded” with Canadian forces that were attacking Syria. Now that Canada is withdrawing outright, this flimsy excuse will no longer be available.
This changes nothing on the ground in Syria but it suggests that Britain is moving more in Corbyn's pro-EU direction and away from the Thatcherite "special relationship" as a US poodle and trojan horse within the EU.
So Cameron want a vote to intervene militarily in a country without either explicit consent of the government of that country or a UN resolution enabling such action? Namely a vote to enable an act of aggression, the ultimate crime against humanity. I'm sure the British troops are fully aware of the invalidity of 'judt following orders' defense.