As the Arab League threw its weight behind the allies' judgment that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack, the US and Britain paved the way for intervention, saying it would be a response to a violation of international law and not aimed at regime change.
General Sir Nick Houghton, chief of the defence staff, will outline a series of arm's-length options for targeted attacks against Syria during a meeting on Wednesday of the UK's national security council (NSC) .
Houghton, who is expected to reiterate the military's misgivings about entering the conflict, is expected to tell ministers the UK could assist US forces with cruise missile strikes launched from submarines, warships and aircraft against targets such as command and control bunkers.
David Cameron announced a recall of parliament on Thursday to allow MPs to formally debate the proposed intervention.
The Commons is expected to endorse military action – with a few rebels on all sides – after Ed Miliband indicated on Tuesday that Labour will reluctantly support the government motion, which will closely refer to international law.
Cameron said any use of chemical weapons was "morally indefensible and completely wrong," adding that any action taken "would have to be legal, would have to be proportionate. It would have to be specifically to deter the future use of chemical weapons".
Without spelling out any detailed plans, he signalled limited action. "This is not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war or changing our stance in Syria or going further into that conflict … it is about chemical weapons. Their use is wrong, and the world shouldn't stand idly by."
No comments:
Post a Comment