Prime Minister David Cameron's plans for an imminent military strike on Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday after a protest by lawmakers warning him to heed the “lessons of Iraq”.
The prime minister was forced into an awkward position on Wednesday in the UK Parliament when members from the opposition Labour party and lawmakers in his own Conservative party said they wanted more evidence before voting for military action.
It was unclear how Britain’s internal political hesitancy regarding the strike would affect the plans of United States and France for an imminent strike.
The government published an opinion from one of its top advisers on Thursday, showing that it was legally entitled to attack Syria given the current circumstances.
It further stated that should the UN Security Council block action, Britain was still be permitted under international law to “alleviate the scale of humanitarian catastrophe in Syria”.
The intelligence dossier accompanying the publication stated that there was no doubt that chemical weapons had been used in the poison gas attack that killed hundreds last week.
However, the memory of the Iraq war effectively diluted support for the prime minister back home with regards to the proposed strike in Syria.
Almost a decade ago, Britain had helped the United States (US) to invade Iraq after asserting – wrongly, as it later turned out – that dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The country, already involved in war in Afghanistan, lost 179 troops in eight years of war after Iraq descended into savage sectarian conflict.
PUBLIC OPPOSITION
The potent memory, of Iraq, however, is reflected not only in party politics, but also in public opinion surveys.
YouGov, an international internet-based market research firm founded in the UK, published a poll on Thursday showing growing public opposition to the proposed strike in Syria.
According to the results, only 22 per cent of the British public favour the missile strike, while 51 per cent of the people oppose the proposition.
Opponents said Britain has neither the money nor the evidence to justify further military action in the Middle East.
