The Prime Minister wants to bomb Syria. More precisely he wants to bomb IS in Syria. A persistent campaign is being waged to gain a majority for such action in the Commons. Sections of the press are driving public opinion towards supporting the Brits having a go. This bog is by no means a pacifist platform.
It is in fact temperamentally quite aggressive. It would happily restore the death penalty for certain types of murder and has no issues with shoot to kill. It believes in a strong defence to ward off attack. It will support offensive war subject to two conditions. The first is that such a war is part of an agreed strategic plan to ensure an end game which really does improve lives and security for everyone, including the enemy civilian population. The second is that our participation will positively affect the outcome. WWII, which I lived through, met those criteria. (Although WWI does not).
The problem with our bombing Syria is that it will make no practical difference. We are already supporting France and the US with refuelling, surveillance and sea based missile and air cover. This is an important contribution. Adding our six fighter bombers to the air armada of the Americans, the Russians and the French as well as others will make no military difference whatever and to pretend it will treats us all as fools. It is about prestige and joining in to make us look good. To cleanse the moral bankruptcy of such a military posture will require a number of conditions to be met.
1 Russia and France have formally become allies against IS. De facto Iran is there with them. This is the single biggest game changer. The rest of the Western coalition must join them so that the whole campaign is properly coordinated
2 The fetish about Assad personally must end. Of course he is a dictator with much blood on his hands, but he holds the Syrian state, what is left of it, together, and this intact core is the essential foundation block of whatever new political settlement can be agreed. Whether he stays or goes is then up to the Syrian people. He is actually much more popular in his country than we think and he has never organised any hostile acts against the West.
3 Every armed unit in Syria must turn on IS or be regarded as an IS ally. There cannot be some factions fighting the Assad regime whom we consider allies. We cannot have a war within a war.
4 A clear strategic plan with an order of battle is essential to demonstrate how IS is to be rendered harmless or destroyed and what is to become of the three dysfunctional countries of Iraq, Syria and Libya in the aftermath. Orderly non sectarian government to provide security and safety for their populations so that refugees can return and help the reconstruction programmes needed, is absolutely essential and a red line so wide it cannot be crossed.
5 Whoever commands the military element of the armed assault must demonstrate the value and type of contribution sought from Britain. It may be bombing, but it may be that other military assets are more useful.
6 The complete failure of the operations conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, whatever glossy spin is put out by the apologists of these military and political disasters, must serve as a reality check for all those who are planning the next move and all those who are asked to vote for it.
Finally these vacuous declarations from Ministers about doing the right thing and keeping us safe must stop. In the short term any increase in our military contribution will increase the risk to our own people. Only if the action succeeds in its objective will we be safer. That is why it has to be thought through.