IRAQ

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has insisted that the Government’s position on Iraq was ‘clear’.

In truth, however, it is far from that as British involvement continues to take on an evolving and expanding role that is outside its original aim of supplying only humanitarian aid to the terrified minorities under attack from the barbarous Islamic State.

Yet, day by day, that position has continued to shift alarmingly. Let’s consider the facts.

First, ministers admitted Special Forces had been deployed. Then Britain said it would ‘look favourably’ on a request for arms and equipment from Kurdish fighters and deployed RAF surveillance aircraft to help gather intelligence for US airstrikes against the jihadists.

The same fighter jets can drop their payloads – and, with the speed events (as they are) moving, they could soon and very quickly be asked to do so. Meanwhile, the political rhetoric has been ramped up.

Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, has said that the UK’s military involvement could last for ‘months’, while Mr Cameron warned of a ‘political and extremism crisis’ in Iraq that had a ‘direct effect’ on the UK.

Disturbingly, the same argument – that, if left unchecked, the terrorists could soon bring bloodshed to the streets of Britain, was used by Tony Blair to justify the disastrous intervention in Afghanistan.

Surely, Britain should be using her political and diplomatic levers and by making far greater efforts to persuade Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – which have vast resources – to play their part. Most crucially, as recent British foreign ventures have shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan, any British military action must have defined objectives, a time limit and parliamentary support.

How far is Britain to be sucked into this terrifying crisis?