The terrorist group Islamic State (IS) is more than just a gaggle of violent jihadists. As Patrick Cockburn has pointed out in the LRB, IS now controls a third of Syria. Following new gains this month, it controls more than a quarter of Iraq. It has oil and gas, as well as battle-won bounty. It is excellent at training and converting soldiers. It may not look much like a western country, but it is to all intents and purposes a state, and one which is hell-bent on expanding its territory.
After IS threatened genocide against Iraq's minority Yazidi population last week, the UK and US realised they could no longer sit idly by. Both have launched humanitarian operations aimed at relieving the embattled minority populations of Northern Iraq, but the US has gone further, hitting IS targets with air strikes and pledging to arm Iraqi Kurdistan's elite Peshmerga fighters.
Thus far, Britain's response to the crisis has been mostly managed by newly promoted Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, but the Prime Minister is facing increasing pressure to come back from his week of pointing at fish and step up Britain's involvement. Among others, Tory leader-in-waiting Boris Johnson and former head of the army Lord Dannat have called for military action. Multiple MPs and other voices have called for a recall of parliament to debate the issue. Our main options would be twofold: Joining the US in launching strikes or sending arms to the country (either to the Kurds in the north or to the government in Baghdad). British Tornado jets are already in the region helping with the humanitarian mission. Any military intervention should be focused on promoting long-term stability in the country and/or protecting the embattled Kurds against the IS advance.
Should David Cameron take the plunge? We've run through four key questions on the issue. Tell us what you think in the poll below.
After IS threatened genocide against Iraq's minority Yazidi population last week, the UK and US realised they could no longer sit idly by. Both have launched humanitarian operations aimed at relieving the embattled minority populations of Northern Iraq, but the US has gone further, hitting IS targets with air strikes and pledging to arm Iraqi Kurdistan's elite Peshmerga fighters.
Thus far, Britain's response to the crisis has been mostly managed by newly promoted Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, but the Prime Minister is facing increasing pressure to come back from his week of pointing at fish and step up Britain's involvement. Among others, Tory leader-in-waiting Boris Johnson and former head of the army Lord Dannat have called for military action. Multiple MPs and other voices have called for a recall of parliament to debate the issue. Our main options would be twofold: Joining the US in launching strikes or sending arms to the country (either to the Kurds in the north or to the government in Baghdad). British Tornado jets are already in the region helping with the humanitarian mission. Any military intervention should be focused on promoting long-term stability in the country and/or protecting the embattled Kurds against the IS advance.
Should David Cameron take the plunge? We've run through four key questions on the issue. Tell us what you think in the poll below.