海角大神

Just over a year ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron suffered his most humiliating political defeat when Parliament voted against plans to bomb Syria.

The vote halted any British attacks on President Bashar al-Assad鈥檚 regime 鈥� and ultimately influenced the same outcome for the US and other allies. It also set a precedent of requiring parliamentary approval for any聽large-scale UK military intervention abroad.

Thirteen months on, Mr. Cameron returned to the House of Commons today to seek approval to bomb Syria鈥檚 neighbor Iraq, albeit under different circumstances and facing a very different enemy: Islamic State. And this time, he is expected to get a commanding majority 鈥� something that could result in putting the聽Royal Air Force into action over Iraq as early as tonight British time.

So what has happened over the past 13 months to allow resounding support for bombing IS in Iraq as opposed to bombing a dictatorial regime in Syria accused of gassing its own citizens?

Patrick Dunleavy, a professor of political science and public policy at the London School of Economics, says that the British public is generally more aligned with German opinion, which is hesitant about intervention, than it is with the US and France under French President Fran莽ois Hollande. But, he says,聽public revulsion at IS鈥檚 brutality has played a major role in supporting British action.聽聽

鈥淚f the gruesome video of beheading a British hostage and ISIL鈥檚 [as IS is also known] general uncivilized behavior was meant to be a provocation, it has worked and now it looks like we will be in direct confrontation with ISIL,鈥� Prof.聽Dunleavy says.

Indeed, Cameron underscored not only IS's brutality but the threat it poses to the UK as he addressed lawmakers.

鈥淟eft unchecked, we will face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean, bordering a NATO member, with a declared and proven determination to attack our country and our people,鈥� Cameron told MPs today. 鈥淭his is not the stuff of fantasy 鈥� it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it.鈥�

Behind-the-scenes politicking was also key to pushing the UK in the direction of supporting intervention.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 different from last year is that the Iraqi government has asked for our assistance, but not in Syria," Dunleavy says. "Even if Assad鈥檚 government asked for help, I don鈥檛 think the British government would regard it as a legitimate government anyway."

The vote underscores a significant change in convention on military intervention in the UK. Since聽last year鈥檚 landmark Syria vote, which Cameron lost 285-272, British prime ministers still maintain a type of "royal prerogative" to authorize military action, but it's unlikely a leader could take action without a House of Commons vote, says聽Paul Cornish, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.

鈥淭he prime minister can authorize it, but it鈥檚 unlikely a British prime minister will ever again authorize a major use of force without a vote of MPs," he says. "At some stage a decision like that might be enshrined in law, but an important precedent was set last year which prime ministers are unlikely to break."

He notes that the US and UK alliance is still strong and that many Britons are happy with the decision last year. "This time round, though, the situation is different with a broader based coalition with Qatar, Saudis, Emirates all joining the US,鈥� he says.