Syria

SOME argue that the Commons defeat on Syrian intervention has spared us an ill thought through rush into an unjustifiable war.

Others that we have turned our back on a humanitarian crisis and sent a message to, present and future regimes, that the use of chemical weapons will be tolerated.

Despite the spin following the Commons vote we should not lose sight of the arguments. Were we proceeding with undue haste? The Coalition motion was explicit — there would be no action without another vote in Parliament and after the UN weapons inspectors reported back.

And was this really about war when Parliament would only be consenting to deterrent action — no boots on the ground — no taking sides? The motion even stripped the Prime Minister of his right to initiate military action — it put Parliament in control.

Some said we could not justify deterring Assad's chemical weapons use when we have allowed others to use them with impunity.

But surely the failure of someone to act to prevent evil in the past can be no justification for continuing to commit the same omissions in the future?

Any hypocrisy in our actions is of course reprehensible, but it does not follow that our moral code should be perverted by way of compensation.

There was of course a powerful underlying reason for the Coalition's defeat — the Iraq war.

That intervention was a huge mistake and founded on a false premise.

Understandably its legacy has such a powerful grip on the national consciousness that all proposed military interventions are to some extent equated with it.

But Syria is not Iraq — just as Bosnia was not Iraq. In Bosnia we intervened in a far more dramatic manner and saved thousands of lives. It remains to be seen what our inaction will cost now.