News Analysis: UK anti-terror airstrikes oked, but more efforts called for

The British House of Commons on Wednesday approved a government request for airstrike in Syria, paving the way for bombing by British warplanes against the Islamic State (IS), the terrorist organization.

The move is a boost to the airstrikes carried out by Russia, the United States and France, but both the British government and experts recognized that air bombing alone will not work and more efforts on political and economic as well as military fronts should be taken in the anti-terror campaign.

After more than 10 hours of debate, the British lower house of the parliament endorsed by 397 to 223 the motion sanctioning airstrike, offering "supports for Her Majesty's Government in taking action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL(IS) in Syria."

The supporters for military actions came not only from the ruling Conservative Party, but also from Labour Party, with more than 60 opposition Labour members of the parliament voting along with the conservatives.

British Prime Minister David Cameron argued that the British participation in the airstrike is necessary on the grounds of safeguarding national interests, protecting British people from similar attacks as the one in Paris and responding to request from France and other allies.

Speaking during the House debate, Cameron said the aim of air bombing is to "keep British people safe" and "the House should be under no illusion that these terrorists are plotting to kill us and to radicalize our children right now."

The British parliamentarians in favor of airstrikes seemed to agree with Cameron, with Labour MP Dan Jarvis saying that "it is my judgment that the action is the right thing for our country and for my constituents".

"Let's not forget what happened in Paris, let's not forget that 30 British holidaymakers were murdered on a beach in Tunisia, let's not forget that there have been seven foiled terror attacks on this country this year alone", Jarvis said.

The motion approved by the House of Commons said that "military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria".

Last Thursday, Cameron said that the British government would pursue a four-pillar strategy in combating ISIL, which aside from military action, also included enhancing security in UK, supporting negotiations in Geneva to bring about a political solution to the Syria civil war and providing humanitarian aid for the war-torn country.

However, critics of the government's strategy has found fault with the military planning, which would rely on so-called "moderate" Syrian opposition troops to take over ISIL-occupied territories after they were bombed.

Cameron ruled out putting "British boots" on Syrian soil and insisted that ground fighting with ISIL would be fought by the 70,000 or so Free Syrian Army and Kurdish armed groups.

According some analysts, the Syrian opposition forces are either too divisive or radical to be a credible force against ISIL. An effective ground force has to include "the one army that's reasonable competent - which is President Assad's", said Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, the former chief of the British defense staff.

But the insistence by Western countries, including Britain, that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should step down has prevented meaningful breakthrough in the Geneva talk as well as military cooperation between the Western countries on one side and Syria, Russia and Iran on the other.

Criticizing the government for lacking a coherent military plan, Julian Lewis, the conservative MP who voted against the motion, said that "ISIL must be driven out of its territory, but this can be done only by a credible force to do the fighting on the ground. So who will supply this force, without which airstrikes cannot prevail?"

Lewis said that what is needed is a "Grand Alliance", involving not only the Western countries but Russia and the Syrian government as well.

Some members of the house voting against the motion also believed that not enough measures would be taken to strangle the financial support for ISIL and called for more international cooperation in cracking down the illegal money flow to the terrorist organization. Enditem