Ministers always said that parliament would not be asked to debate the bombing of Syria unless the government already had the numbers to win the vote. On Wednesday, after more than 10 intense hours in the Commons, the government duly got an emphatic 174-vote majority, with 397 MPs backing the extension of the campaign, 66 of them Labour rebels. Britain is now a fully committed participant in the US-led aerial alliance against Islamic State in Syria as well as Iraq. A largely defunct international border will now be crossed. But so will a new political watershed for Britain.
This newspaper opposed the motion that MPs voted for on Wednesday night. We support the cause of defeating Isis, and we do not reject military action. But we do not believe that the case that David Cameron put to parliament held up under scrutiny. In particular, his case is based on some heroic assumptions about the numbers, moderation and unity of local Syrian and Kurdish ground troops, without whom the military defeat of Isis is vanishingly improbable. It also rests on a large helping of wishful thinking that the Vienna diplomatic process will produce a post-Assad transition that would permit Syrian state forces to play a decisive role in the military obliteration of Isis.
A YouGov poll published on Wednesday showed declining public confidence in the case too, which is ominous for the government. Perhaps that may change, now that the action is under way and UK armed forces are in harm’s way. But the Commons debate itself will not have persuaded many doubters until, perhaps, a remarkable speech by the shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn raised the level of the occasion and elevated Mr Benn into a truly significant figure in Labour’s ranks. Sometimes, on such occasions, there is talk of “the Commons at its best”. Today was not one of those days until then. Mr Cameron, already under fire for his words about Labour “terrorist sympathisers”, said little new. Jeremy Corbyn made a laboured speech against bombing which was met with mixed enthusiasm on his own side – and was hit for six as a piece of oratory by Mr Benn. Mr Corbyn may be gaining public support for his scepticism about bombing, but he is also haemorrhaging public support as a leader at the same time.
The decision has, however, been taken. Many MPs made thoughtful speeches through the long day and several have produced website statements and other analyses that do credit to their serious approach to an indisputably difficult set of dilemmas. What matters now is that the government should not delude itself into thinking that the hard part is over. It isn’t. If anything, the hard stuff – military, diplomatic, political and humanitarian – starts here. Ministers need to realise that, as Yvette Cooper put it, the country has lent the government its support for the Syrian campaign on a variety of important conditions. And what has been lent can later be reclaimed.
The first of these conditions concerns the way the bombing raids are carried out. Mr Cameron said some reassuring things about precision weapons and pilot skills. But public opinion, here and elsewhere, will not stand for mass civilian casualties or ineptly conducted missions. Isis is adept at concealing itself behind human shields and it will do so. As a general rule, Britain must not bomb human shields, however important the Isis targets behind them. Mr Cameron should have set out the RAF rules of engagement more openly. He should have been challenged more robustly on the subject. He still can be, and he must.
A second condition is that the diplomatic drive must be redoubled, not forgotten. Mr Cameron must recognise that he won the vote because MPs and the public want and expect the diplomatic solution to be the government’s foreign policy priority now. Yet that is easier said than done. Progress in Vienna is welcome, but it remains little more than embryonic at this stage. There are no cosy choices here, as the defence committee chair, Julian Lewis, said in his speech.
MPs must also turn up the heat on timings. Parliament has been promised quarterly reviews of the progress of the campaign. That is not enough. MPs should put a sunset clause into the commitment in Syria and be ready to withdraw their support if the hoped for progress is not made. Britain must also accept that more war means more refugees and an increased obligation to do more for them and to take a larger share. This week is the start of what could be a long commitment. But the focus must also already be on the finish.
