The UK under Tony Blair followed blindly (hung on the coat-tails?) where the US led in invading Iraq – ostensibly to get rid of weapons of mass destruction (which anybody with the slightest understanding of Saddam Hussein’s psychology knew didn’t exist – though he wanted us, but more especially Iran, to think they did) but really simply to be seen to be doing something about the attacks on the World Trade Center (which Saddam Hussein had not a thing to do with; Al Qaida had no presence in Iraq before the war precisely because he had such a firm grip on things they weren’t allowed one) the operations in Afghanistan not being satisfactory in rooting out Osama Bin Laden, or just possibly to “secure” oil supplies.

Now that all worked out terribly well, didn’t it?

About two years ago some of the blowback from the mistakes of those adventures resulted in a vote in the UK Parliament on bombing Syria. No consensus on such action could be found.

Yesterday, more or less prompted by the murders committed by Isis/Isil/Daesh in Paris, a measure to bomb Syria was passed by that Parliament’s successor. This time, though, the target is different. Not the forces of President Assad, but those of Daesh.

The decision seems to be from the “grab at a false syllogism” school. This goes along the lines of, “The events in Paris were terrible. Something must be done about the perpetrators. Bombing is something. Therefore we must bomb.”

The fact that bombing Syria is against international law, notwithstanding the recent UN resolution, that bombing by near enough everybody else has had absolutely no effect in reducing Daesh’s activities does not seem to count against this argument. The facts that it won’t defeat them, that it won’t make us any safer, that it will only increase their appeal to potential adherents, that such a response is precisely what they look for when planning their atrocities weighed nothing against the apparent need to be seen to be doing something. Anything.

I had to give a hollow laugh when in the run-up to the vote Mr Irresponsible, aka David Cameron, havered on about outsourcing our security to others. If the UK is not outsourcing its security to others why, exactly, is it a member of NATO? (And, as a by-the by, what exactly is the purpose of the nuclear deterrent? France’s Force de Frappe didn’t prevent the Charlie Hebdo attacks nor those of this November. Trident didn’t stop the IRA nor 7/7 bombers.)

He also said that opponents of the bombing were terrorist sympathisers. Language such as that proves once again that the man is unfit to be Prime Minister.

Yes Daesh is a murdering, barbaric organisation utterly antithetical to freedom. But, Mr Cameron. Isn’t it possible conscientiously to think that bombing is a strategic mistake? That it will only encourage Daesh that it has got under our skin? That it will be profoundly counter-productive? That it will cause civilian casualties far in excess of any damage it might do to Daesh? That it will not bring about an end to Daesh? That it will not reassure Muslims in Britain that war is not being waged against their religion? That it makes us even more of a target than we were already? That it can only strengthen the position of the man the original bombing was supposed to help oust?

The history of British interference in the Middle East goes back a long way. The Sykes-Picot Agreement carved the area up between Britain and France, becoming effective after the Great War. In the 1920s the RAF (in Iraq) was the first air-force in the world to bomb indigenous rebels though it’s likely civilians bore the brunt as usual. The UK mandate in Palestine led (in)directly to the formation of Israel. Along with the US Britain was instrumental in removing the Mossadeq regime from Iran in the 1950s. Then there was the chaos we recently left behind in Iraq and contributed to in Libya.

Our politicians seem to have forgotten all this. Unlike them, the locals have long memories.

I can’t see anything good coming out of this at all.

So we are at war. Again.

It may not be declared as a war but that’s what it is. Deployment of armed forces against those of another sovereign state is war by definition.

I doubt whether this will have the effect intended. It didn’t work in Kosovo nor against Saddam Hussein. Only ground troops did.

It’s also playing into Colonel Gaddafi’s hands. This can be spun as exactly what he is trying to assert, the insurrection is a neo-colonial endeavour on behalf of the Western powers, perhaps a grab for oil. It would have been far better for us to abstain from military force and, if we want to give material help to the rebels, grant them belligerent status (as we did not in Bosnia) and supply them with the means to succeed – ie arms. Granted, that would probably lead to a civil war and many deaths but it would clearly be a matter of Libyans against Libyans – among whom deaths are occurring anyway.

Or else Libya’s Arab neighbours could have taken up the cudgels alongside the rebels. (But that too would have been a violation of Libyan sovereignty.)

I happen to dislike the man and all he stands for and wish him gone, but up until a few weeks ago Colonel Gaddafi was regarded as the legitimate ruler of Libya.

He is only doing what each one of the leaders involved in this action, Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, etc etc would do if faced with an armed insurrection, which is to send in the troops.

And where, by the way, is the UN resolution targetting Bahrain for doing exactly the same as Gaddafi has, or Saudi Arabia for its intervention there? I think we know the answer to that one.

What is true for Gaddafi is true for all non-democratic Arab states. What applies to him ought to apply to all. Or else we are mere hypocrites and our action illegitimate, even if sanctioned by the UN.

I also don’t quite follow the complaints of the Arab League about these air strikes. (Russia’s attitude is explicable since it abstained in the UN vote.)

To be policed, a No-Fly zone requires interdiction/nullification of the air defences/anti-aircraft capability of the region concerned and hence attacks on any such targets within the zone.

The Arab League called for the No-Fly zone. It can’t then deride the necessary precautions.

But this is international politics. Lewis Carroll couldn’t do them justice.