26/09/2014 Newsnight

Britain is now committed to the military battle against so called IS

and will be for a very long time. Left unchecked we will face a

terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean, and bordering a

NATO member, with a declared and proven determination to attack our

country, and our people. But there is a consensus here that there will

be boots on the ground. The only question is whose boots are they?

There is already evidence of the conflict spreading as we have

witnessed. Turkey's border with Syria is NATO's

frontier with Islamic State. We have been talking to people that told us

that IS operatives can move through this border pretty much at will.

Will we escalate the war with IS beyond Iraq. I asked the Defence

Secretary. If it is right to help the Government of Iraq to repel

ISIL, it is also right to help them repel ISIL from its safe havens in

Syria. Also tonight. Say hello to my little friend Would you want to

watch classic movie on an iPhone, Al Pacino says definitely not, I don't

want to mess with him but is he out-of-touch.

Good evening, parliament has delivered a mandate for the military

to become immeshed in Iraq again. For the first time since air strikes

were there three-and-a-half years ago, RAF fighters will be dropping

bombs on IS in Iraq. The Prime Minister says there was a strong

case for doing more in Syria but it was clear from the debate, in

particular Labour's position, that had the motion included air strikes

on Syria, success for David Cameron wasn't guaranteed. The single vote

doesn't amount to a comprehensive strategy, a constant theme in the

seven-hour debate. The most awful horrors have been committed by ISIL.

Today they voted to send jets back to Iraq, something many thought they

would never do that. Sill a terrorist organisation unlike those

we have dealt with before. The brutality is staggering. Beheadings,

crucifixions, the gouging out of eyes, the use of rape as a weapon,

the slaughter of children. All these things belong to the dark ages. The

Prime Minister set six tests for action in Iraq, which he told the

House he thought had been met, but the dissent came quickly. How long

will this war last, and when will Mission Creep start. ISIS indeed are

made up of murderous psychopaths, that is not the issue, look at what

the House of Commons agreed to. Iraq, Afghanistan, in this

Government, Libya, none of them success stories. This is about

psychopathic terrorists that are trying to kill us and we do have to

realise that whether we like it or not they have already declared war

on us. There isn't a walk-on-by option. Even Labour MPs reported

feeling a jolt in the Commons chamber when the Prime Minister said

this. War is a necessary evil on occasion, no matter how necessary it

is always ghastly and horrendous. It is with a feeling of depression and

trepidation that I will be supporting the Government tonight.

Critically for the vote to pass the Labour leader supported the action.

The late Robin Cook said on his resignation speech on the eve of the

Iraq War this, "our interests are best protected, not by unilateral

action but multilateral agreement and a world order governed by

rules". Mr Speaker, this is multilateral action, prompted by a

legitimate, democratic state. As always the MP George Galloway was

blunt. This will not be solved by bombing, Mr Speaker we have been

bombing Iraqis for 100 years. 100 years. They are seeking to incite us

to bomb, and why doesn't that give people pause that this is something

they want? Because it will make them the heroic Muslim defenders against

the crusaders. The country named in this vote is Iraq, but the country

on everybody's minds is Syria. The debate has been going on inside

parliament for six hours now, many MPs have made this point, you can't

intervene in Iraq if you don't also try to do something about Syria. The

Prime Minister told the House today he would like to do something about

Syria, but it is the Labour Party, he said, that is stopping him. I'm

very clear, ISIL needs to be destroyed in Syria as well as in

Iraq. We support the action that the United States and five Arab states

have taken in Syria and I do believe there is a strong case for us to do

more in Syria, but I did not want to bring a motion to the House today,

which there wasn't consensus for. Ed Miliband only supports action in

Iraq, but some Lib Dem and his own side think he's wrong. There is a

strong argument about the legal base for action in Syria under Article

51. Point I have been making the last few days is in my view, when

we're not talking about being invited in by a democratic state. It

would be better, I put it no higher than that, it would be better to

seek a UN Security Council resolution. I'm content that were

there to be a motion to the effect that we should take similar action

in Syria, there exists a proper and sound legal basis for that action. I

believe it is a mistake today not to include Syria in the motion. Why is

it right to carry out such actions against ISIS in Iraq, but not in

Syria. I like to ask why we welcomed and supported the American

bombardment of ISIL targets in Syria this week, but said that British

action should be limited to Iraq? Ed Miliband there coming under pressure

from his own side, and later Labour would clarify. The Labour leader

does believe that any action in Syria has to be tested, their word,

at the UN. It doesn't necessarily have to be emphatically voted

through, it is just it is better, they say, to be seen to try. It is

not impossible in the weeks and months ahead that we might see

Labour support action in the UN as a whole even if it cannot. The

tornadoes got the go ahead today, but only after a Commons haunted

debate. T ghosts of when we did go in and when we didn't. Today Ed

Miliband was able to carry his party to support action in Iraq. If

eventually he sees the case for action in Syria himself, it is not

obvious MPs would be so understanding. A vote on Syria would

be very hard to call. Well, the case for intervention

against IS has grown in recent weeks as a result of gruesome beheadings,

parentally carried out by the Britishman the papers have dubbed

Jihadi John. Earlier we spoke to the defence second. I asked him how soon

British bombs would be falling in Iraq. I'm not going to give

Newsnight, even Newsnight, operational details of exactly what

is going to happen when. But the point is this is going to be a long

drawn-out campaign. You shouldn't expect to see immediate results on

Saturday morning, this is going to take some time. Syrian air strikes

were expressly ruled out, would you rather that you were able to have

the ability to drop British bombs on Syria? The Prime Minister made clear

in his own speech today that ISIL can only be defeated in both Iraq

and Syria. ISIL is head quartered in Syria, that is where its command and

control is, that is where its resources are, and a lot of its

people are. So this is a battle against ISIL that can only be won in

both countries. I was quite heartened today by a surprising

amount of support, people saying well if this is true for Iraq why

aren't you operating in Syria. But we have to take this one step at a

time. We have been invited now by the Iraqi Government in their appeal

at the United Nations to come to much more direct help than we have

already been given. We have been given humanitarian help and

supplying arms, we have been invited to help them militarily, that is

what we sought the authority of parliament today. Do you help what

Menzies Campbell says, that actually there is no legal bar to dropping

bombs in Syria, there is no legal bar for you doing it just now? We do

think there is a strong legal case for selective self-defence, if it is

right to help the Government of Iraq repel ISIL, it is also right to help

in northern Syria. There is a strong legal case for action in Syria, but

a much more complicated picture. Of course we don't have the support of

the Government in Syria as we do have the support of the Government

in Iraq. It is a different situation. But you are not in a

sense going into Syria to do anything about overturning the

state. You are going in, in you were going in, to help the Iraqi

Government deal with ISIL? We would if we got to the point of

intervening in Syria, we haven't taken that decision yet, and we

would have to go back to parliament for further authority to do so. If

we were to get to that point and there are other things to talk about

there. Syria is a different proposition. The vote today was

about Iraq. Could you imagine a situation where something really

terrible was happening and you had to send British warplanes from Iraq

into Syria? Yes I could, the Prime Minister made it clear, there are

two exceptions to consulting parliament, one is if there is an

immediate humanitarian need, for example if we knew that a slaughter

was about to occur. The other is about where there is a very direct

British interest, for example in a hostage situation, we have to retain

the ability, the Prime Minister and myself as Defence Secretary to send

forces in immediately when parliament, for example, isn't

sitting or over a weekend, we have to retain that ability. But

generally it is a good thing, I think, to have the authority of

parliament. The FBI said yesterday that they know who Jihadi John is,

do you now know who he is? I would rather not comment on that. At what

point might the British Government release his name though? We have to

do everything possible to, as far as we can, to help protect the lives of

any British hostage. And I'm afraid to say, it is not helpful for us to

speculate in public about where they might be held or who exactly might

be holding them. What I can assure you is we're making every effort,

24/7, day by day, to try to find the location of the two remaining

hostages, and of course if there is any possibility of saving their

lives we would try to do that. Do you accept that the passing of this

motion today puts both Alan Henning and others in possibly more danger?

We know they are in terrible danger, they have shown they can and have

beheaded British hostages. Both those lives, very sadly, are in

danger any way. We can't equally sadly, we can't allow the overall

strategic decision as to whether to help the Government of Iraq be

conditioned sadly by the fate of the earlier hostages or the possible

fate of these too later hostages. Finally, at the moment, IS controls

a quarter of Iraq. What does success look like. What is, as it were, the

end game in all this? The immediate end game in Iraq is to help the

Government of Iraq recover the ground that has been lost to ISIL,

to push them back out of its borders, to regain its territory and

as an all-inclusive Government, that has Sunni, Kurdish and Shia

representation to build political support and to improve the security

situation. On existing borders? On existing borders, for everybody in

Iraq. It is possible for the Iraqi army and the Kurdish forces to do

that, but they are going to need a lot of help. That is what they have

asked the international community for, and that is what I'm very

pleased now we will be part of. Thank you very much Michael Fallon,

thank you very much. As the Westminster debate was taking place

the reality on the ground was a stark reminder of the ferocity of

the take by the group calling itself IS. They are trying to bear down on

the Kurdish city of Kobane on the Syrian-Turkey border, home to at

least 200,000 people. Fighting was visible from Turkey, as Turkish and

Syrian Kurdish fighters have been trying to hold them back. We're

joined from Gazantiep near Kobane. You have been to the border, what

have you been able to see? We were there right on the border of this

Kurdish enclave earlier today. IS has been bearing down on this

enclave, getting closer and closer all the time. We have seen the tense

of thousands of refugees getting across. There was also scuffles at

Turkish Kurds tried to breakthrough the other way from Turkey into

Syria, to join their brethren in the fight against Islamic State. The

Kurds have criticised the Americans saying they are bombing IS

everywhere except on the frontline. They are practically begging the

Americans to come to their aid. The Americans are in a difficult

position, unlike the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrian Kurds are allied with the

Turkish Kurds, and regarded by Turkey and the EU as a terrorist

organisation, putting them in a very difficult position. What have been

the impact on the air strikes that have been undertaken, what has been

the impact on the ground? Well, the air strikes have hit IS, we

understand, at command and control posts, at oil installations, and

some military hardware. Now we know anecdotally from reports that some

IS commanders have been moving out of their more obvious location,

vacating some buildings, we certainly know that quite a few

civilians have left IS-controlled areas. It is interesting to look at

the role of Turkey here. Turkey has so far taken a very back seat role,

it has refused to sign up to any of the US-led coalitions here. But the

President said today that parliament would be recalled and would meet on

the 2nd of October to consider extending the mandate to possibly

include the Turkish military. We don't know what that means, but

Turkey has a huge border with both Iraq and Syria, and while it has

been praised on the humanitarian side, it has taken in possibly more

than any other, over a million-and-a-half refugees, it is

very much taken a back seat role on the security side and it has been

criticised for essentially sitting back and allowing IS to take root.

To those fleeing the conflict in Syria, Turkey has mostly been a

generous host. This is the small town of Surouch, American air

strikes have done little to stop a sustained attacks by Islamic State

on a Kurd enclave. Around 150,000 people have flooded into this area

in recent days. They are all lying on blankets on the gardens and it is

full of people. We are thankful for this town, they are very hoes

pitable, we thank them. But the open border has benefitted others too,

notably Islamic State, they have been able to use this frontier to

move fighters and weapons into Syria. Now has more countries join

the US-led coalition against IS, Turkey, NATO ally, is coming under

increasing pressure to clamp down. This level of security is relatively

new. We have been talking to people who cross the Turkish-Syrian border

illegally for a living. Interestingly they have been telling

us that in the areas where Islamic State controls the Syrian side, the

Turk irk security presence is almost non-existent. And that IS operatives

can cross in and out of Turkey almost at will. Until the nearby

City of Gazantiep, many Syrian refugees scrape a living, relying on

charity. Goods and people cross the border with the help of smugglers.

One told us IS is actively recruiting here. He asked us to

conceal his identity. TRANSLATION: You can see members of IS sitting

around in the luxury hotels here, you can recognise them immediately.

Some of them go around handing out supplies to the refugees. They tell

the women, they will give them whatever they need, just tell their

husbands to go and fight in Syria. They are very dangerous. Recent

pictures sent to us by activists inside Raqqa, suggest that IS have

been keeping a low profile since the start of the US-led campaign. The

smuggler has controlled in and out of IS-controlled territory several

times since the start of the bombing. TRANSLATION: In our village

the foreign fighters have moved out, especially the ones with families.

Normally we would see them on the streets during the day. Now we

don't. They make their movements at night. The US strikes in Syria

focussed, initially, on Raqqa, the self-styled capital of Islamic

State. A mother of two witnessed the first explosions and decided that

the time had come to leave the city. She too asked us to conceal her

identity. TRANSLATION: It was a terrible sound, we are used to

Syrian planes and their sound, this was different. Everyone started

running away. IS fighters and ordinary people, everyone ran. Among

those who fled Raqqa, there are few supporters of IS, most agree things

were far worse under President Assad. She fears that by driving out

the Jihadists, American air strikes could open the door for the regime

to return. TRANSLATION: That would be a disaster, the regime is bad.

I'm not on any side but I'm against the American strikes, this is not

the way to get rid of Islamic State. The air strikes will drive more

refugees across the border, and in among them more IS operatives. It is

no accident that almost everyone we interviewed for this report agreed

to speak only on condition of anonymity. Even as American allies

tried to bomb the Jihadists out of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State is

extending its reach deep into Turkish territory. Here now to

discuss all this is the Labour MP John Woodcock who voted in favour of

air strike, Clare Short who resigned from the Labour Government two

months after the Iraq War in 2003, and Patrick Cockburn the Middle East

correspondent for the Independent and writer of a new book about IS.

First of all John Woodcock, you voted for the motion today, evidence

there that IS is pushing on with the bombing. We have two tornadoes

operating in -- we have six Tornados operating in Iraq, it is not much?

It is part of a force. We have to be up front it will be difficult and

long. It is going to be messy. People are going, innocent people

are going to die through this. But the choice that I face and everyone

in parliament faced is what is the alternative. And for me the

alternative was to do effectively nothing against a group for which

there can be no accommodation. You called the threat as dists an

ideology as the Nazis? If left to grow. At the moment you have group

has grown in a short space of time and taken a lot of territory in a

short space of time. They have not taken a foothold in the region. They

will do everything to destroy our way of life, that is why we have

strike. We are striking with one hand tied behind our backs if we

don't strike in Syria? There is a clear case to go into Syria. You

heard we accept the legal case. A lot of people have said passionately

that we shunned stand by and allow others to take this. There is no

military sense in campaign that stops at an imaginary border as far

as the IS is concerned, and it allows them to go a few money yards

and then be safe. Clare Short how would you have voted today? I would

have abstained. I'm not against taking some action to constrain the

territory taken by IS, but first of all Britain is only six aeroplane,

we are just joining up with America as usual, we not making the

strategy, we are not in charge of it, let's be clear about that.

Britain could have a more useful role in looking at the wider

problems in the Middle East, and looking for big e longer term

solutions. One of the recruiting Sergeants to organisations like IS

is the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people, we do nothing

about that. The evil version of Islam that propagages hatred of

Christians and Jews and Shia, comes out of Saudi Arabia, who has been

spreading those views across the world. So you can't solve this by a

bit of bombing, and a bit of bombing might be part of a strategy to

constrain it, but there is nothing broader and Britain is joining in

the bombing, America is in charge of the strategy. Let's not pretend we

are a significant player in this. Patrick Cockburn I assume you would

acknowledge we can't just solve this by bombing, where does President

Assad play a part in this? It is strange situation, we are not

actually allied to the people who on the ground are fighting ISIS. We

have just seen that in Kobane, that the Syrian Kurds, we regard them as

terrorists. Assad, the people who are fighting ISIS in Syria, the

Syrian army under Assad, Hezbollah, we also regard them as terrorists.

They are all fighting them separately isn't it that is the

problem. What is the main fighting force of the Iraqi Government is in

fact the Shia militias, not the Iraqi army, of which the Sunni are

terrified. That is why Mr Fallon's point that we are supporting an

Iraqi Government that is inclusive and accepted by everyone is not

true. The whole thing is a cimera. Originally President Assad was

encouraging IS to make the case against the FSA. Are you saying we

have to set aside our differences in Britain with President Assad and get

him recognising there has to be a joining up to fight IS in Syria, and

that is the best way of dealing with this? That is already happening. I

mean we are bombing IS which is fighting the Syrian army, this

benefits the Syrian army. If IS attack Aleppo, the biggest city in

Syria, are we going to stand back, that benefits us at. There should be

no alliance with this murderous dictator. It is a gross

simplification of a very complex picture to say on the one side there

is Assad and the other side there is ISIL. There remains beaten back but

not yet cowed, moderate opposition forces who under the cover of air

strikes can actually regain ground. That is what we have to got to be

able to pour resources in to. Isn't this third force really doesn't

exist, the ideas that 5,000 will be trained by the Saudis, they are a

very minor force in Syria. There is a positive thing we could do which

is to get the anti-ISIS force, which would include such moderates that do

exist and Assad not to have a political solution, which isn't

going to happen, but have a ceasefire, then they could direct

their energise against ISIS. Let me bring in Clare Short. I mean the

problems of 2003 were such that you felt you had to resign, because

actually you didn't believe, everything was being, it moved along

so fast. Do you now accept, at least even in the conversations you have

been having here, is that we are being led through this piece by

piece, and actually parliament isn't being bounced into doing things they

don't want to do? Parliament voted today for limited bombing by six

aeroplanes, joining in with an American strategy. It is not an

all-out war and we are not going on the ground. But I don't believe

there is any strategy that will attain the growth of extremists

groups that are spreading now in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya,

Somalia, and northern Nigeria, we have a thatsive problem. If we carry

on with -- we have massive problem. If we carry on in an alliance with

the gulf state it will carry on. We won't solve it this way. If there

was a question of stake taking a vote on air strikes in Syria, what

is Ed Miliband's position going to be if he doesn't get comfort from

the UN. Would you see a situation where you would actually have to

vote against your leader? He's clear today that he remains open of going

in Syria. And understanding that you can't chase this group to the border

and stop. Him and Douglas Alexander have raised the idea of a UN

Security Council resolution. Come on it will never get past? I think that

may well be right, so it is really important that he has said that this

is not a condition of support, I think it is not unreasonable that he

has asked for a greater sense of what would be the strategy in Syria.

I'm clear that we need to be actively saying that it should be

our ambition to go into Syria, let's see the strategy and try to vote on

it as quickly as we can. Thank you very much indeed.

Far from the debate at Westminster, the UKIP leader Nigel Farage told

delegates at his party's conference in Doncaster he that he would not

back air strikes in Iraq. The racecourse seemed a fitting setting

for a man who apowered in Paddy Power's ad for the Ryder Cup.

The first parliamentary election in Clacton, brought on by the defection

of a Tory MP to UKIP. We have been watching Nigel Farage up close.

This isn't perhaps the most obvious place to look for high politics.

Here, underneath the grandstand at Doncaster racecourse is where UKIP

is holding its annual conference. One of the things very striking

about the UKIP conference is it is quite small. It is also quite

elderly as a population. But that is because they don't have any

lobbyists, and what that also means is that everyone here is an

activist, and enthusiast, you can really see the reception they get

from all their speeches. But there is one man they love above

all, Nigel Farage. Especially when he's taking the fight to the Labour

Party. Why are we in concaster, it is quite simple, because Ed Miliband

is one of the town's MPs and we want to signal to the world that we are

now parking our tanks on the Labour Party's lawn. So, UKIP is talking a

big game on supporting the NHS. And proposing new turnover taxes that

will clobber corporate tax avoiders. We're going to pose a much bigger

threat to Labour than they ever dreamt, seats like Doncaster,

Rotherham, Yorkshire, seats in the north-east where I spent a lot of

time in the European elections. Hartlepool we were scoring 40% of

the votes in the European election, we can reach areas the Tories can't

in the north and areas Labour can't reach in the south. Where are things

with UKIP in Scotland? Very well, the tectonic plates are shifting,

the Labour Party is in dire straights, nobody is interested.

Labour treat us like sheep on the housing estates people are saying,

they don't do anything for them, the Conservative Party are non-existent.

The Scottish nationalists most people on the housing estates think

they are a bunch of Edinburgh solicitors doing Scottish dancing.

Many think UKIP could do some serious damage to Labour. The

problem for Labour is they are only thinking about UKIP in terms of what

it means in 2015. Take a step back, look at the long-term picture here,

you have got a radical right party setting up shop in seats that are

hardcore Labour heartland territory and they are winning over 20 pest

plus in some of these seats, without having a local branch. Have they

shored up the left-wing enough, UKIP can be hit from that side, and.

Members and donors have their own ideas. What is the absolute

irreducible core, the red line for a UKIP negotiating position with North

party would be? To get out of the European Union. We would probably, I

mean I'm just giving my own opinion, but we would probably accept a

referendum, number two, immigration. Then we get to all manner of things,

lower taxes, far less regulation:. We would cut foreign aid in order to

do things like giving soldiers' widows more money, we think the

priorities are wrong at the moment. That will make it hard to go into a

coalition with anybody but the Conservatives wouldn't it? It would

be difficult to go into coalition with anyone in way. But I think you

are right. Our policies, except for a few, are very, very similar to the

Conservatives. I mean I supported the Conservatives once and I only

left them, well they expelled me, but the problem was their attitude

to the EU. In our target seats next year, in the by-election, and in the

general election, if you vote UKIP you will get UKIP.

So what does getting UKIP mean? Well outside the core issues of Europe

and immigration, it remains unclear. But members told us they expected

their anti-establishment message would have won them at least five

MPs, or maybe dozens by this time next year.

What's your favourite way to watch a movie, in a big cinema or the

privacy of your iPhone? Al Pacino, who is famous for films, including

the 1983 Scarface, received the BFI fellowship last night, and chose the

moment to ament the idea that watching a movie on an iPhone was an

experience anyone would want. And for a start they can miss the

nuances of an actor's expression, and Pacino is someone always worth

watching closely. Is he old school and needs to catch up or is he a

powerful voice of cinematic experience. I'm joined by one of the

founders of the iPhone Film Festival. I will throw you some

names, Dr Zhivago, Dances with Wolves, would you be happy watching

these films on an iPhone? Yes and I can explain as to why. But

generally, yes. Because we are moving in a new day and age as far

as technology is concerned. But you don't get the panoramic view, that

idea of being in widescreen in the cinema, the space in front of you.

You are looking down at a very reduced screen? Yes, but so the

advantages of viewing something or a film or great film in that matter on

an iPhone, compared to a cinemas you don't have the distractions of

someone sitting next to you eating popcorn, you have the iPhone, it is

just you and the iPhone, you can hold that screen and believe it or

not when I view a movie on an iPhone, I become one into the movie.

I have no distractions whatsoever it is just me and the iPhone viewing

it. That's the gen. Generation of today that choose to view it on a

mobile device or iPhone compared to a movie theatre and watching it in a

movie theatre. There is something about the communal experience of

being in a cinema with a load of other people and seeing some

fantastic film unfold in front of your eyes together, that is actually

something that is worth doing? Right, so I mean if we go back in

time before television sets were actually in millions and millions of

homes it was strictly theatre. When TV came out and people thought you

can't watch a movie on a TV you have to go to a theatre, so this is

transition going from the television set to the iPhone. Nowadays we have

got everything. We are so short of time, I will put to you Al Pacino's

point, he says the nuances and the way actors deliver the lines, even a

vague expression, a tiny expression is completely lost by screwing your

eyes and looking into the iPhone? The experience itself, going back to

what Al Pacino said, it is not that I disagree with him, it is the

experience you get at a movie theatre you are not alone. If you

have a home theatre sitting in front of large screen and viewing it

alone, I agree. At a movie theatre you have hundreds of people around

you, someone is making a sound or someone's phone is going off, or

eating popcorn next to you or a baby crying. Things of that nature is

where you lose that attention span. But if you are on an iPhone, it is

in front of you, it is just you and you are strictly looking at it. So

you get, you become one with the film maker and one with the actor.

Thank you very much for joining us. If you are going to the movies have

great time this weekend, that is all we have time for, good night.

great time this weekend, that is all we have time for, good night. Some