01/12/2015 Newsnight

On the brink of war - a Newsnight special

as parliament prepares to make up its mind on Syrian airstrikes.

This time tomorrow night, barring unforseen events, MPs will have

voted on whether to send British fighter planes to bomb IS in Syria.

For some parliamentarians the agonising will continue

Just this evening, the Foreign Affairs Select committee narrowly

approved a resolution stating that the PM had not adequately addressed

Meanwhile, the Stop the War coalition have been

There will be Conservatives who vote against,

and Labour MPs who vote for, but if David Cameron gets his way our

bombs could be aimed at IS targets almost immediately after the vote.

So on the eve of this momentous decision we are devoting Newsnight

to debating the arguments for and against - I'm joined by politicians,

Syrians, passionate advocates for military action, and others equally

passionate about the perils of joining the Americans the

First tonight, a reminder of how we got to this point.

It was bombing campaigns by President Assad's forces that led

to a dramatic recall of Parliament in August 2013.

The call to arms followed a suspected chemical weapons attack

on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on the 21st

of August, in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.

The US and the UK said that the Assad

In the event, the coalition government's motion

David Cameron said he would respect that defeat.

It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views

of the British people, does not want to see British military action.

I get that, and the government will act accordingly.

Early in March 2013 Islamic fighters had entered

And soon it became the capital of the so-called Islamic State.

By the following June, in Iraq, Isis forces had overrun both Fallujah

They quickly declared a caliphate across Iraq and Syria,

Two months later, the city of Sinjar was captured

Within a week President Obama authorised the first air strikes.

Ten days later, Isis uploaded a video entitled,

It shows the beheading of the American hostage James Foley.

It featured a masked militant with an English accent.

This militant became known as Jihadi John, and more gruesome

In September, the US announced the formation of a coalition to

And US warplanes began to bomb Raqqa.

By September, France had joined in air strikes over Syria

Within days, Russia entered the war, carrying out its first air strikes

in Syria hours after parliamentary approval in Russia.

On November 13, Paris suffered a devastating series

of attacks, leaving 130 dead and many more injured.

Isis also claimed attacks in Tunisia, Beirut,

and the downing of the Russian tourist plane over Sinai.

These recent attacks have galvanised governments to prepare joint air

strikes to degrade and eradicate Isis.

Supporting air strikes in Syria are the Labour MP Mary

Creagh, The Times Columnist David Aaronovitch and Wa'el Ageji

Against, are the conservative MP John Barron,

the commentator Matthews Parris, and the Syrian academic Reem Turkmani.

We will address three questions tonight

In front of them an audience of people,

some of whom have a locus in the debate, and others who are undecided

on the arguments for or against. Diane, what would you want to hear

to make up your mind? I want to know that it has been thought through.

And what are you concerned about? What added value the British would

give in this involvement, given that other countries are already involved

in this conflict. And Mary, what are you so worried about? I am worried

about not repeating the same mistakes of Iraq.

The first question we want to address is the military

Can we really make any meaningful difference? And even if we can make

a difference from the air, who is going to fight the ground war that

everybody agrees is necessary. First David Aaronovitvch,

a minute please in support What MPs are being asked to do

tomorrow is not to start a war - there's been one of those in Syria

for four years in which 300,000 Syrians have died and 5 million have

sought refuge abroad - or to "bomb Syria",

but to extend the scope of existing British airstrikes against Isis from

Iraq over the non-existent border. Our allies, not least the French,

have requested this of us. Germany responded to France's

request for help earlier today. Militarily it will add to the

existing pressure on the beheaders, enslavers, rapists and amputators

of Daesh and assist forces such as the Kurds and non-jihadi Syrian

resistance fighters who - not Assad - have borne the brunt

of the anti-Isis fight. It will do something to diminish the capacity

of Daesh to plan attacks on European It will not end

the Syrian civil war - which we and others have stood back from

for so long - and it will not in and Eventually that will be accomplished

by ground forces, probably consisting

of local allies assisted by special It does not detract from

the need for a peace process in the But right now, concretely,

British forces can help damage Isis and give succour

and encouragement to our friends. Now John Barron, the case against,

also in a minute. At a time when too many aircraft are

chasing too few targets, many in Parliament are concerned that in the

absence of a long-term strategy, both military and non-military, we

risk repeating past errors such as in Iraq, Helmand and Libya, and

would have made the mistake of in Syria two years ago had Parliament

not stopped the Government intervening on behalf of the rebels.

Air strikes alone will not succeed. What we need is a comprehensive

strategy. On the non-military front, we need to make sure we do more to

address issues such as why we are not as rocketing Daesh-ISIL's

prominence on social media and financial interests. But the key

question we cannot answer is who is going to supply the local ground

forces to actually defeat Daesh on the ground? And if we cannot answer

that question, it begs also have other questions as well, and the

idea that there are 70,000 moderates left, even if there are, we risk

ignoring the lesson of Libya, when once the common enemy was defeated,

but coalition of forces against Gaddafi fragmented into a thousand

militias and a further civil war Enes Unal. There have been no

answers forthcoming. Thank you very much. The Government

said tonight that those who will be voting against Arab terrorist

sympathisers. I do feel about being called a terrorist sympathiser by

your own Prime Minister? I won't comment on a private meeting, but I

have served in the Army and on the streets of Northern Ireland. I was a

platoon commander in Northern Ireland, and I do think we must not

resort to such language. Instead we must look at the actual evidence

before us, and there is clearly a lack of ground forces to take Daesh

on, and that is one of the key issues we have to address. Let me

put that straight back to David Aaronovitch. It won't necessarily be

just symbolic for us, but it won't be the game changer we think. What

is actually needed is some support for the 70,000 ground troops who

frankly are too busy fighting Assad and are not going to move that

position unless we can guarantee protection from IS. Firstly, there

is a fallacy in this which is the dramatic, which is the idea that

this is not also happening in Iraq. Isis isn't just in Syria, it is in

Iraq, and consequently the ground forces that it faces are partially

in Iraq. So if you are talking about whom eventually is going to take

Raqqa, the answer is I don't know, but I do know that they will take it

quicker if you degrade Isis's military capability. And Matthew

Parris, there is no point in being a mile and a half away and not being

in Syria. In Iraq we are supporting a democratically elected legitimate

government. You are not doing any such thing in Syria. You can always

chase people over the border, but I do find it surprising that David

says he doesn't know who is going to take Raqqa, but we can work all that

out once we have vaporised Isil. Mary Creagh, the other argument

about the problematic nature of the military engagement is that Barack

Obama said tonight it is not that we don't have enough forces to deal

with IS, it is the fact that right now we don't have enough targets.

Isn't that the problem? This is not a well worked out strategy. IS don't

operate in a way that you can pin them down so easily? I was present

at a briefing with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary,

and I asked this question about the 70,000 forces. I got the answer

there were 40,000 forces and 30,000 perhaps Islamic law say is who are

willing to be part of a political settlement, and then there are

20,000 much more Islamist forces who are not willing to be part of that

settlement, so there is complexity underground, but those Free Syrian

Army forces have the degraded over time that Assad, and if we carry on

doing nothing in Syria, there will be no opposition to Assad, nobody on

the ground to take over. David Carr tellers who is going to

take Raqqa. Who will take it from IS? I hope it will be local forces

on the ground, but the advice we had from the local Lieutenant General

there today said they wanted to be local forces. Kurds? Yes, but there

will be territorial limits to where they want to go, but what they don't

want is Western Force is coming in because they don't think that is

helpful locally. You are against military action, tell me why you

don't think that strategy will work. It is strange to hear you talking

about Syria and asking the wrong question. If the Free Syrian Army is

being bombed every single day, and they are dealing with Aral bombs,

how do you think they are going to come and take ground as you command

them to do? They are not your forces. They have their battle to

fight, which is Assad. If you don't abate the right question, if you

don't have the right priority, you are not going to defeat ices or

solve the problems in Syria, and you are certainly going to add to the

tragedy of the Syrian people. Can I come back at that? This is the

question you asked. I totally agree with you. My concern having met with

Syrian refugees in Lebanon two months ago is how we tackle Assad's

reign of terror, and I am clear that a man who uses cluster munitions and

chemical weapons against his own people cannot be allowed to continue

unchecked, and I believe passionately that Syrian lives

matter in all of this. What we need to see is a timetable... But your

leader has a different view. He is not prepared to vote the air

strikes. This has been a very difficult debate, and we have seen

people on all sides of the house voting with their conscience

tomorrow. There is a wide range of opinion reflected on this panel and

reflected across the parties. But back to the Assad question, we need

peace and democratic elections in Syria, and that parallel political

process is now starting in Vienna. There is a confusion here. Air

strikes against ices are not going to stop the tragedy of the Syrian

people. What needs to be discussed in Parliament is the protections of

the Syrian civil youth in case any other... And at the same time, the

Russians, of course. Since the Russians got involved, Isis has

gained so much ground. They are targeting the Free Syrian Army,

hospitals and civil society institutions. What do you say to

David Cameron's argument that we can't let the French and the

Americans do our work for us? We have to be their shoulder to

shoulder, using these Brimstone bombs, taking part? He is saying it

as if his own -- as if it is a party we all have to join. It has been a

year of air strikes against ices, and what is the game? They actually

took all my -- Palmyra, the jewel of Syria, during the air strikes. The

attacks in Paris were planned in the summer of Brussels and Paris, not

Raqqa, so there are much wider issues to be addressed. It is not a

year since American air strikes helped defend the Turkish town of

Kobane on the border and stopped Isis. Ices was their only when the

Kurds went in to take back their cities. They were reluctant, and

they held in cooperation with the ground Force, so where are the

ground forces? That should come first. But what I'm saying is

American helped maintain Kobane and keep it. And there will be similar

other situations in Syria as there are in Iraq which Britain can

conceivably help with, and to me, that alone would be sufficient

reason. The rest of Syria would be reduced to the ground just like

Barney. What you need is a political solution first and foremost. So the

regime stopped attacking the civilians, the Free Syrian Army and

every body else, and having all the Syrians framed in the political

circle so that they can all tackle ices. There is no more room for more

forces in this. Two very quick issues. What is the difference

between Syria and Iraq? As Matthew says, first of all, we are in Iraq

because we were invited to do so, but secondly, there was another

fundamental difference, and that is that on the Iraqi payroll, you have

hundreds of thousands if not a million on the security forces side.

In Syria you have nothing actually of the sort. And having returned

from the Middle East last week, the Foreign Affairs Committee went over

and had a look. What we are being told actually is that there are no

or very few moderates left in this civil war, and the idea of turning

the Free Syrian Army against Daesh is just nonsense.

The government has been careful to insist that bombing Syria is part

of a clear diplomatic plan for the future of Syria,

involving a representative and legitimate government.

The Vienna Process is crucial to this.

The meeting in Vienna earlier this month was the

second time Iran and Saudi Arabia had sat together at the same table.

And the 17 parties to the talks have agreed, in principle,

on a way forward - a UN-brokered ceasefire, a transitional government

But huge questions remain, not least what happens to Bashar al-Assad.

Making the case that it's not - in a minute long speech -

Without political strategies no military action could achieve

The lack of political legitimacy is at the root of the Syrian conflict.

So building a legitimate Syrian state should be the strategy.

So no exclusion of whole sectors of the society

It means a constitution that guaranties equal

citizens rights, fair distribution of wealth, human rights and freedom

Syrians are taking the risk of dying in order to reach countries

that provide these rights - they are not going to Saudi or Iran.

Getting there requires an inclusive political solution that takes into

consideration all the grievances, and gives the conflicting parties

the tool of politics rather than arms to settle their differences.

Because dividing the country to winners and loser, like what

happened in Iraq, will only generate extremism and further conflicts.

Only in this way the Syrian-Syrian fight

will end, and only then can the military and other power groups

All Syria needs to get there from the rest of the world,

including Britain, is to support the solution to the conflict and not

And now suggesting there is a clear diplomatic plan let's hear from

There are a number of reasons that may be believe it is time for the UK

to take action in Syria. After the Paris attack and

President Hollande's request from our law makers to vote yes to

Uk military action in Syria, However, I still believe without a

comprehensive and overall strategy to win the war and a post-conflict

plan, military action will not Therefore I believe that all forces

involved, both the allies and regional forces, such as Saudis,

Qatar and Turkey - on the one hand - and Iran and Russia on the other,

should put aside their differences and come up with

a plan to cooperate to defeat Isil Without addressing the issue

of civil war in Syria, Bombing now is one step towards

preventing Isil taking more territory

and expanding their influence. Next a comprehensive

strategy must be agreed. Coming to our guests. You support

air strikes. But do you think a diplomatic strategy as outlined by

the Vienna process and so forth is feasible if Bashar al-Assad

the Vienna process and so forth is anywhere in the equation? I

understand Isis is a anywhere in the equation? I

to global anywhere in the equation? I

community including the UK is to respond militarily somehow.

community including the UK is to my only concern, my biggest concern

rather is what measures are in place to protect civilians. This is one

issue. The second issue is what about the narratives of hatred and

religious supremacy that is fuelling Isis and enabling it to recruit more

supporters? The third issue is Isis cannot be defeated by air strikes

only. This leads us to the issue of ground intervention. Talking about

ground intervention, boots on the ground, who are they, these troops?

Are we talking about the Iraqi army and popular mobilisation, largely

Are we talking about the Iraqi army sectarian? Are we talking about the

Are we talking about the Iraqi army Peshmerga and Kurdish forces? Well

the gentleman behind you, Peter, you Peshmerga and Kurdish forces? Well

have direct experience. Your son was Peshmerga and Kurdish forces? Well

Iraq. When you hear of post-conflict Peshmerga and Kurdish forces? Well

it make you think? I do not think they have a clue about post-conflict

resolution. When they talk about dropping bombs and the first

resolution. When they talk about that is dropped, will start people

joining up. People are going to die, do not think they are not. People

are going to die in Syria as the drop the bombs, Isil will not stay

there to be bombed, they will move round the world. What you then get

as we have seen in Paris, we're coming up to a really busy time, I

am worried to death that somewhere in England in some big shopping

centre, a little kid going to Santa Claus is going to be hurt. It is not

soldiers or politicians who will be Claus is going to be hurt. It is not

blown up. We will come onto the issue of safety in a moment. We have

no idea who would be in charge of Syria. We want a democratically

elected Syrian government in charge of the Syrian army to bring peace to

that country. And the Syrians amongst us tonight are united in

that role. But if you look at factions in Syria, all in their own

geographical areas working for their own and without any kind of idea who

will emerge as a leader, you cannot have a resolution? The Russians and

the Iranians, both eager participants in this than we are

ever going to be, are determined to keep President Assad in place. I do

not see the beginnings of this international agreement you are

speaking. President Assad was the cause of these problems. I agree

that he should temporarily stay where he is and then gradually find

a coalition or replacement. President Assad would not be kept

and the Iranians know that as well. Would any of the different factions,

Free Syrian Army, come to the table if Bashar al-Assad was there even

for five days? No, people in Syria needs their dictator to be taken

away from the future of Syria. We have been trying for five years to

get rid of him. How can you tell other that her son was tortured to

death by his forces and he is going to remain. And you're also

negotiating with him, making him legitimate and important. There are

some ironies here because people like me who supported action against

Assad in September 2013, which John and Matthew were against, for

precisely these reasons. And of course the biggest killer in Syria

has been President Assad and his barrel bombs. We have to make a

distinction between two situations. The long-term situation in Syria and

there was a large amount of agreement between my colleagues on

the right about the kind of general process. The problem is that we'll

take a long time and involves many actors with competing interests. And

in the meantime we have Isis and Daesh out there... But if you bomb

Islamic State, you just shore up President Assad? A man doing

business with Islamic State for oil is much as far as I can see Assad

has never been in the business of taking out Islamic State. But it is

surely a defeatist attitude to say as long as the Russians and Iranians

are there in support of Bashar al-Assad then there can be no

settlement? Because that is the equation. That is the point. The

reason that we stopped the government taking the side of the

rebels, and we are pleased we did that because we would be taking the

side of Isil and Daesh which has emerged from the rebels. So the plan

was not coherent and illustrates a wider issue. We have a long wish

list of what we would like by way of a political settlement... About

reinforces the point that there is no coherent long-term strategy with

regards to how we defeat Daesh. And without that, air strikes alone when

already aircraft are chasing too few targets. But failures elsewhere in

Libya and Iraq cannot be the barrier to action for ever. But we've got to

learn the lessons and one of the key one is we need a realistic and

long-term strategy that takes care of the whole process put up David

from the audience? A couple of things that had not been mentioned

in detail, and we have to defeat Isis in some way before we

concentrate on Bashar al-Assad. We should concentrate on trying to stop

Isis using the internet in the way they do and trying to cut off their

financial assets and the way they get revenue in the millions. No one

seems to be doing that in any effective way. Absolutely. We have

to cut off the flow of finance and arms to Islamic State. You have had

three years to do that. We were not engaged in Syria. I greatly regret

the decision by party in 2013. We have a mass murderer using chemical

weapons on sleeping children at night in a civilian area of Damascus

and we had that vote and I turned on my television and saw him bombing

school in Syria and thought this is the man we have allowed to continue.

We allowed President Assad to continue to murder his own civilians

and then he created a vacuum into which Islamic State have moved and

have spread their warfare and jihad eateries. This attitude allowed

Assad to stay in position? Well it was imposed from the beginning that

the head of state should step down. Russia supports their own narrative,

not Assad himself. When the bombing was discussed in 2013 it was not to

take over from President Assad. So it only prolongs the conflict. The

question is why the UK and Americans and others said something they

cannot deliver. They said the head of state should step down. So they

should go back and talk to Moscow. We must move on

Fundamental to the Prime Minister's case

for bombing Syria is that it will make the streets of Britain safer.

David Cameron told the Commons that the security services have disrupted

seven terrorist plots to attack the UK this year,

all of which were linked to Isis or inspired by their propaganda.

Attacking Isis on their home turf reduces their

ability to plan attacks abroad and reduces their appeal, making attacks

much as we have seen in Paris less likely - so the logic goes.

Or does bombing simply make us more of a target?

Making the case that attacking Isis makes us safer,

Tomorrow I will be voting to extend UK airstrikes to defeat Isil

This is one of the most important decisions an MP can make and it

30 British holidaymakers were murdered on the beach in Tunisia

in July and we know that seven Isil-related terror attacks

against British people have been stopped in the past year.

We need a fresh diplomatic effort to bring peace to Syria and the Vienna

talks offer a real hope of that, with Russia,

Saudi Arabia and Iran all around the table for the first time.

But there is no hope of negotiating with Isil.

We must stop the flow of fighters, finance and arms to their HQ

We need military action to stop them murdering Syrians and to disrupt

their propaganda machine which attracts fighters to pursue

-- which poisons young minds and cause them to fight.

For the past 14 months, we have worked with 60 other countries, in

It makes no sense to turn our planes back at the Syrian border

France and the US, our closest allies, have called

on us to work in solidarity with them to defeat our common enemy.

We must act to keep our country safe.

Action has consequences, but so too does in action.

And now suggesting it makes us more insecure is Mathew Parris.

I have no certainties with which to confront David Cameron's

uncertainties. There's something many of us who

don't want Britain to join the We fear that killing people in Raqqa

may put British cities Is it cowardly, is it irresponsible,

to say that? If I were persuaded by the Prime

Minister that Britain's bombers in Syrian skies would in the end make

the world safer, then exposing our own citizens to a possible temporary

increase in the risk of terrorism here would be a sacrifice we should

make. But I don't believe David Cameron is in the position to

feel confident this will happen. He doesn't know enough -

none of us does - to say that. Yet he puts that assertion right

at the centre of his argument. Where are these Isil terrorist

command and control HQs that Modern terrorism doesn't

need physical HQs. Tornado bombers are useless against

the Internet and mobile phone. The inevitable collateral killing

of thousands of uninvolved Syrians - together with our country's clear

identification with this rain of fire, has a terrible potential

to breed new enemies. I cannot be sure the Prime Minister

is wrong. But I'm pretty sure he isn't

as confident as he says. I wonder whether he doesn't really

know what will happen, but just feels it's inappropriate that a big

fight is taking place in a just David Aaronovitch, there are no

certainties. France is in the forefront, and look what happened in

Paris. You don't know that home-grown terrorists, as they were

in France, will not react to attacks by Britain on ices. France was also

attacked back in January and the cause for that was people making

cartoons. Mary's argument was more subtle than you are allowed. She

wasn't talking about command and control centres in quite that way.

What she was saying was that the example of having territory which

you call the caliphate is something that was acting as a propaganda

pulled to jihadis as well as being a place where organisation could

happen relatively unscrutinised. And I think that is a strong point and

you need to deal with it. But isn't part of the problem that by going on

the attack, Isis wants us to attacks, and yet this is a hydra

headed beast. They don't want us to attack. They want us to leave them

alone to regain strength and recruit more fighters, and at a time of

their choosing, they will choose to attack us. They now control an area

the size of Great Britain, and in Iraq we have managed to take back a

third of their territory. As long as they are able to be there and say

that they are a history of paying salaries, they are able to recruit

people to come and murder other people. Isis is acting like a state,

with the health service edit own oil, and we are allowing us to have

and we have to stop it. I agree, but you cannot take ground back. Being

an infantryman in the army, you cannot take ground back by air

strikes alone. You need to identify local ground troops who will take

that ground, and nobody can. If you can't supply the ground troops, and

there is a great disagreement about this, you should think twice about

committing to military action into you know where you are going. That

doesn't necessarily mean that the streets of written will be less

safe. We just don't know. Matthew can speak for himself. What I do

know is that there are already too many aircrafts chasing too few

targets in Syria. You should start by protecting the civilians in

Syria, and you should give the people the chance to fight their

fight. If you want to tackle Isis, tackle the root of the problem,

which is the great oppression, the great injustice of the Syrian

people. David, coming back to this point, don't you think that some

ices sympathiser in this country who is disaffected, who has to stay here

because he or she cannot travel abroad, is more likely to turn that

I -- turn their anger on this country now? It strikes me they have

any number of reasons they could give for wanting to attack us as

things are, as they gave examples in Paris and so on, and they don't need

this as a case. The thing that stops us attacking is the fact that our

secret security forces have so far stopped them. When we fail, they

will attack. It seems that uncertainty is a theme

tonight, and I think war should only be a last resort. If we are so

uncertain about the situation in circumstances, we need to make sure

we have exhausted all other options. Speed up the peace talks, strengthen

why P forces. Let's not go haphazard into this. But when David

Cameron says that we can't rely on our allies like France and America

doing this business for us, do you feel that actually that has some

purchase? Of course not. Considering the civilian casualties taking place

and that will take place if we get involved, that is a very cosmetic

argument, saying that we need to join our friends. The one thing we

haven't spoken about is what comes next. A comprehensive exit strategy,

and something I am concerned about is that thousands of able who will

become displaced. There is a refugee crisis happening across Europe, and

it will get worse. We haven't spoken about how we're going to deal with

it, and I think we need to talk about that. I agree that the UK

should degrade Isis's capabilities and defeated, but being an ex-army

officer, I am not sure that air strikes on their own would make a

big difference militarily, and I'm not sure about the impact they would

have on our security here in the UK, because we are talking about

home-grown terrorism and extremism, we're talking about narratives of

hatred here in the UK, and we're talking about lone wolves. So I'm

not sure how these air strikes would help us.

What you're saying is that not attacking Syria isn't going to make

it any less likely that we would have home-grown terrorists? I don't

know which will make it less likely. It might make it more likely. What

I'm sure Rob is that raining bombs down on Raqqa is not going to stop

Isil would-be terrorists to and planning and perhaps carrying out

terrorist atrocities all over the world. They will continue do this,

and the best way to deal with this is intelligent and money. But in the

meantime, you would advocate that we do absolutely nothing, we sit on our

hands? Yes. The problem is, there isn't an exit strategy. We have been

bombing in Iraq for a year to no great effect. You don't need an exit

strategy when you have only got aircraft, you just stop. I want to

come to the point that the gentleman made about the YPG. If they say to

you, you would like some Essam, would you be in favour of it? They

are on the ground. You can't say, fight Isis on the ground, we support

you, but we won't be giving any support. I think that is what we

want to see. Raining bombs down on Raqqa would be bad targeting by the

RAF if that is simply what they did. I don't imagine that is what they

are planning. But if this escalate as a result of air strikes, and

there is much more engagement, and we are not getting anywhere, is it

absolutely the case that you think that Britain should never put troops

on the ground? No, that is not the case at all. I am not speaking from

my colleagues here, but I think there was a very good argument for

an international force to secure Palmyra. It could've been done. And

it would have sent a signal? I completely disagree. David supported

the Iraq war, that was a gross error. We put Western troops into

yet another intervention in this region, and it will just flame the

sick Arianism, and the religious divides. -- the sectarianism and

religious divides. So many different groups in Syria

wants so many different things, Christians among them, you can never

settle it. And that is the concern. The coalition, the Free Syrian Army

facing Assad could splinter into a thousand militia as we saw in Libya,

and that brings us back to the exit strategy. When we talk about a gob

rounds of strategy long-term, that includes the exit strategy, it is

got to include who is going to command that ground. So in that

case, if you don't believe that we have an exit strategy, is what you

are saying just now that what we have to do realistically is leave

Bashar al-Assad in position now? We need to identify by whatever means

who are the ground forces... That is a yes! Without ground forces, all of

us can accept, air strikes alone can never... It strikes me that if that

is what you are saying, then ultimately, if we don't have those

forces on the ground, you do have to leave Bashar al-Assad where he is. I

think there is a point where you have got to say... I think Matthew

Parris's words are irresponsible in raining bombs down. Nobody is

suggesting we do that to Assad. We want to target bombs, and also cut

off their supplies. If we hit Isis as well as we can disrupt their

ability to take effect against us... And can you respond to that?

That is always the aim, you never aim to exact collateral damage, but

you always end up doing it. Ladies and gentlemen, we're coming to the

closing moments of our programme, so we want final thoughts. stop we are

only being asked to continue doing what we're doing in Iraq. What we

are doing will be little enough but would be something and it would

help. There is no easy decision in foreign policy, just hard choices.

The present the greatest threat to the west, is a President Assad or

Isil? If it is Isil then we have to identify how best to capture

background with local forces. At the moment because we cannot answer

those questions and do not know what the exit strategy is, we should be

cautious. The more you intervene the more you take responsibility for

events on the ground. The United Nations called on all countries to

use all necessary means to tackle the global terror threat posed by

Islamic State. We must tackle the ideology at home, work against them

in Syria and take all steps to reduce the loss of civilian life in

that country. If any of you here who were undecided have firmed up their

opinion, can you tell me? I am more anxious about going to war. And if

they're asking for all necessary action, I want to see the funding

stopped. I have moved more to the anti-airstrikes position because it

sounds to me like air strikes is one thing but we will snowball into

something else but we have been in before, another Iraq. And the

gentleman at the back? I think there is no clear evidence that bombing

Syria will make London or Manchester safer. I have not heard anything of

that tonight. Thank you all very much. That is all we have time for.

Less than half of voters back air strikes on Syria according to The

Times front page tomorrow. And the UK strategy is based on wishful

thinking and poor information, the Daily Telegraph. Cameron launches an

all-out attack on Labour ahead of the vote. And the Daily Telegraph

Jeremy Corbyn the terrorist sympathiser. That is all we have