Mr Cameron hasn’t yet made the case for bombing Syria

AS the Commons prepares to vote on bombing Syria, there have been few issues – and none of such magnitude and consequence – on which this paper has found itself so agonisingly torn between the two sides of the argument.

Pulling us one way, with a moral force that cannot be exaggerated, is the call to stand by our closest allies.

France and the US share our most fundamental values. Paris has suffered a vile atrocity, while mighty America is the ultimate guardian of our way of life.

Both have called for our assistance in the Syrian campaign. And just as we would hope and expect them to rally to us in a crisis, so they are entitled to look to us for help.

True, the French have not always backed us when we’ve asked. During the Falklands War, they were less than wholehearted in their public support for our cause (though President Francois Mitterrand moved heaven and earth to help us behind the scenes).

Wisely, they also refused to have anything to do with the Anglo-US invasion of Iraq.

But these were exceptions. In two world wars, and many actions since, the people of America, France and Britain have fought and died side by side in the cause of liberty.

So the circumstances in which we would turn a deaf ear to our allies’ pleas – perhaps compromising our place in the world and even our sense of pride and decency – would have to be very remarkable indeed.

It should also be acknowledged that it seems somewhat irrational to bomb Islamic State forces in Iraq, while slamming on the air brakes at the Syrian border. The enemy recognises no frontiers, so why should we? And yet… and yet… The arguments against extending our raids are so many and powerful that they must surely be weighed with the greatest care before any decision.

For one thing, the small scale of our proposed intervention in Syria would be merely symbolic, making no practical difference to the course of the war.

Indeed, while David Cameron made some persuasive points this week, he was utterly unconvincing when he suggested our few warplanes would have more than a token impact.

After all, America has flown 57,000 sorties over Iraq and Syria in 17 months, carrying out 8,300 strikes without noticeable strategic effect. It is fantasy to pretend our handful of Tornados might turn the tide.

Nor did the Prime Minister convince when he claimed our precision-guided bombs carried no risk of inflicting civilian casualties, thus attracting more recruits to the jihadis.

Then there’s the ineluctable truth that bombing can achieve little without boots on the ground to defeat IS and restore civil order. Yet when asked whose boots these will be, Mr Cameron merely blusters about a supposed army of 70,000 ‘moderate Sunni forces’.

Who are these people, and how can we trust them in this toxic cauldron of warring interests?

Has the Prime Minister learned nothing from the power vacuums after Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq and his own bombing of Libya (now in a state of anarchy and a centre for arms dealing) – campaigns that left the region 20 times more dangerous than before?

Indeed, there are also chilling echoes of Mr Blair and the Iraq fiasco in Mr Cameron’s citing unnamed ‘intelligence sources’ to support his case for war.

As for his refusal to publish the Attorney General’s advice on the legality of bombing Syria, this is probably wise in light of the subterfuge and mendacity when Britain’s top lawyer was asked to rule on Iraq.

Meanwhile, this paper makes no apology for reminding the Prime Minister again that the last time he asked MPs’ permission to bomb Syria, just two years ago, he was planning to attack President Assad. In switching his target to IS, what he proposes now is effectively an alliance with Assad.

Such surreal inconsistency, if nothing else, should surely make him stop and think – and that’s before throwing into the explosive mix the nightmarish unpredictability of Turkey, Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The Mail was hugely sceptical about Britain’s involvement in the Iraqi incursion. We warned it would open up a Pandora’s box of terrorism in the region. And so it has tragically proved.

But this does not mean we are naively pacifist.

Indeed, we would urge Britain to join Barack Obama and Francois Hollande if they were proposing a mass, UK-Franco-American army of occupation. This would include, imperatively, Arab states in the region and, more vitally, a ten-year plan for establishing a UN protectorate.

But if these less-than-impressive leaders, or Mr Cameron himself, have any coherent strategy for what happens after the bombers go in, we have yet to hear it.

So, yes, it sickens the Mail to find ourselves in the same camp as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, who pose as peace-lovers while nursing a soft spot for terrorists.

Even more, it distresses us to know that many of our readers, for whom we have enormous respect, may disagree with us.

But on balance, and with many misgivings, this paper believes the case for bombing Syria has not yet been made.