UK's 'confusing' Iraq policy

Douglas Alexander, UK shadow foreign secretary and Labour politician, spoke out on Monday (18.08.2014) to call for greater clarity in Britain's strategy for tackling the crisis triggered by the advance of "Islamic State" (IS) militants in Iraq.

Speaking to the BBC following British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon's statement that Britain was no longer involved in "simply a humanitarian mission," Alexander said, "I do think there is a case for clarity being brought to the respective statements of the foreign secretary and defense secretary."

"It would be important to understand the nature of the mission that British forces are now engaged in," added Alexander.

In a commentary published in the UK's "The Telegraph" newspaper on Saturday (16.08.2014), British Prime Minister David Cameron attempted to shed light on Britain's plans regarding IS in Iraq. He appeared to be leaving some options open, saying, "First, we need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go after the terrorists, international co-operation on intelligence and counter-terrorism or uncompromising action against terrorists at home."

Choosing the path of caution

According to Shashank Joshi, senior research fellow at British defense and security think tank RUSI, the British government's stance on the issue "has been evolving," and this evolution has confused the public. But he also believes the issue is deeper than the recent set of mixed messages circulated in the media.

"The underlying confusion results from the fact that the British government has a clear sense of what it's opposing and a clear sense of a threat, but it doesn't have a clear aim," Joshi told DW. "It doesn't know whether it wants to directly weaken IS or merely assist others in doing so."

He added that the government also faces two major constrains, which are resulting in very cautious policy.

"The first of these constraints is US policy: British policy cannot get ahead of US policy, but US policy is itself in flux right now," said Joshi. "The second constraint is that Cameron doesn't know how far he can go politically at home. That's to do with the fact that the British parliament is currently not in session and he also feels extremely vulnerable because of last year's failed vote about missile strikes against Syria."

Jane Kinninmont, associate fellow at UK think tank Chatham House, pointed out that another aspect preventing Cameron from making strong statements is the British public's skepticism about military intervention in general. And with a parliamentary election looming next year, Cameron "wants to avoid the kind of embarrassing climb-down" he had to make in the face of his government's parliamentary defeat on the proposed intervention in Syria in 2013.

Large-scale troop deployment "inconceivable"

On Monday (18.08.2014), Cameron told a breakfast TV show on BBC One, "Britain is not going to get involved in another war in Iraq. We are not going to be putting boots on the ground. We are not going to be sending in the British army."

The UK has deployed a limited number of special units to Iraq and promised to supply arms to the Kurds, which may have signaled greater military intentions in the public's eyes. But according to Kinninmont and Joshi, a large-scale deployment of ground troops for combat purposes is extremely unlikely.

"Ground troops are exceedingly unlikely given the domestic opposition here," Kinninmont told DW.

"I can imagine the UK sending military trainers and advisers to the Iraqis, but what I think is completely politically inconceivable is British combat units taking on IS militants," said Joshi.

A war on terror?

In his newspaper commentary, Cameron wrote, "this is not the 'War on Terror'" in reference to Britain's aims. However, he referred to the need to fight "terror" and "terrorists" throughout the article.

According to Kinninmont, the avoidance of the phrase has semantic reasons. The term "war on terror" - first used by US President George W. Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks on New York - has become unpopular in the UK over time, associated with Britain's disputed involvement in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

"Cameron is rejecting it similarly to how Obama previously decided to replace it with the subtler 'struggle against global extremism,'" said Kinninmont. "It produces a strong sense of deja vu that is likely to be met with considerable cynicism by the British public."

Joshi said he believes the aim behind Cameron's statement is to identify IS as a specific threat rather than part of a greater struggle against terrorism.

"IS is no longer just a small insurgency but a major state-like institution," explained Joshi. "By saying 'war on terror' Cameron would be weakening the advocacy of pointing to IS specifically."