Window on Westminster

The host of a major British news programme recently remarked that Jeremy Corbyn, the hard left candidate slated to become the new Opposition leader, had unusually not been mentioned that evening. British politics remains dominated by the Labour leadership contest in which Corbyn holds pole position.

Corbyn is popular with Labour supporters because he opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He now promises a public apology for 'deception' before the invasion and the later suffering of the Iraqi people. He adds: 'Let us say we will never again unnecessarily put our troops under fire and our country’s standing in the world at risk. Let us make it clear that Labour will never make the same mistake again, will never flout the United Nations and international law.'

Support for the UN is a key Labour value but allowing the vagaries of the UN security Council to define the moral limits of British policy could mean abandoning people who need military action if a great power, for its own selfish reasons, vetoes action. This also means that Corbyn will not back expanding British air operations into Syria, let alone any move to deploy British ground troops to either Iraq or Syria.

That puts Corbyn into a different orbit from Iraqi Kurdish leaders such as the High Representative in the UK, Karwan Jamal Tahir, who recently wrote in the Guardian that defeating Daesh requires 'a mixture of more inclusive Iraqi politics and increased western military commitment.' He specified that because 'air strikes and local forces can only do so much' in containing but not defeating Daesh, 'western ground troops may be needed to dislodge Daesh' and 'we do not lightly suggest that British and other troops may be needed in Iraq and Syria, but this possibility needs to be faced.'

Ann Clwyd, a prominent supporter of the Kurds, says of Corbyn's pledge: 'Now, people should ask the Kurds and the Shia whether they are pleased Saddam Hussein has gone or not... [Of] course they are.' Another left-wing MP, Dave Anderson, who opposed the 2003 invasion is more reflective. Two years ago, on the 10th anniversary of the invasion and the 25th anniversary of Halabja, he wrote in the Times that 'We and the rest of the world could have taken real action before Saddam’s genocide and repression became industrial. We could have, and should have, toppled Saddam years before we did.' That the Iraqi Kurds urged the West to overthrow Saddam is lost in the mists of time.

The analysis that underpins Corbyn's foreign policy needs careful unpicking. An interview he gave last year to Russia Today, Putin's propaganda arm, has surfaced. Corbyn appears to equate Daesh and American actions: 'Yes they are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling. Likewise, what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling, but there has to be seen to be an acceptance of a much wider view of the world than is apparent at the present time.' That outraged those who reject any moral equivalence between the West and Daesh. Western powers have made huge errors of judgement but they are not inspired by an ideology of genocide, mass execution, enslavement and rape.

Corbyn then urged a political solution because 'all wars have to end in some kind of political compromise - why not start with a political compromise now, rather than fuelling the war by putting more weapons, more arms and more money into the conflict.' Cutting off external supplies to Daesh is vital but the flabby formula of compromise with Daesh was fantastic.

His campaign subsequently clarified and improved his comments: 'Jeremy Corbyn believes the violent ideology of Isis is a vicious, repugnant force that has to be stopped - where Jeremy Corbyn talks about the need for a political solution and compromise he means not with Isis but against Isis, working across the region and beyond to choke off supplies that help find and arm them and working with neighbouring states in the region to come to common solutions.'

I have known Corbyn to say hello to over nearly thirty years and recognise that he defended Kurds in difficult times. I also assumed his fringe views had little traction. That will change if he is elected and major arguments on a gamut of policy issues erupt between his narrow base of parliamentary supporters, most Labour MPs who oppose him, and new party members who back Corbyn. There will be a huge hangover if he wins. Corbyn is a diligent left faction leader who will have a massive job convincing voters that his security policies are credible. Some Kurds in Britain back him, some oppose him. They and others may need to ask what his policies on Daesh and intervention mean for Kurdistan.

* Gary Kent is the director of All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.