Will Cameron intervene in Iraq?

David Cameron cut short his holiday to chair Wednesday's Cobra emergency committee meeting on Iraq as pressure on him mounts to take military action against Islamic militants.

Last Thursday, President Obama announced air strikes against the Islamic State (Isis) in northern Iraq, but although he has said that the strikes will continue if necessary to "prevent an act of genocide", he has repeatedly stated that he does not want to be pulled into a longer involvement in Iraq, says Martin Pengelly in The Guardian.

In recent days, both the US and the UK have been conducting airdrops of food and water to Yazidis fleeing persecution on Mount Sinjar.The response of the US and UK governments has been an "incoherent mess", says Steve Richards in The Independent.

Subscribe to MoneyWeek

Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Get 6 issues free

Sign up to Money Morning

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Sign up

In an interview with The New York Times at the weekend, Obama suggested that the reason the US had not intervened militarily when Isis began its offensive was because suchaction would have encouraged Iraq's Shia prime minister,Nouri al-Maliki (whose sectarian policies have alienated the Kurds and driven the Sunni tribes into the arms of the jihadis) not to compromise. Yet faced with the continuing horrors of Isis, that is just what Obama is doing now.

Meanwhile,Cameron, who stated last summer that there was "no politicalappetite for intervention" is now under pressure to join the USin its limited military mission. That would require Cameron torecall parliament early and be confident he could win a vote.

This "nervy, tentative pragmatism" may be preferable to the"shallow evangelism" of Bush and Blair, but "ultimately, it is forIraq's governing factions to work with all parties".

It is "fantasy to think that the Iraqi government and its militarycan stop Isis on their own", says FT's Richard Haass. Isis has"zeal and momentum", whereas Iraq is "beset by division,corruption and incompetence".

Obama needs to make the casefor military intervention. This is not about nation-building, butusing air power to weaken an adversary. Others, includingKurds and Iraqis, will need to provide ground forces.

Isis ismore of a threat than al-Qaeda; it wants to "create a caliphate...over swaths of the Middle East and beyond". The US shouldcarry out sustained attacks on both Iraq and Syria. Borders areirrelevant. "The president said people the world over look toAmerica to lead. He is right. Now is one of those times."