West must now help end the suffering

IN THE end, the joint international attack on the Syrian regime was carefully calibrated and intelligently restrained. The fundamental point was made, that the civilised world cannot tolerate the use of barbaric poison gas weapons and will punish those states which break this rule.

The genuine dangers of widening the conflict in a direct clash with Russia were skilfully avoided. Our munitions worked and hit their targets.

The phrase ‘surgical strike’ is a misleading one, as 100 per cent accuracy simply is not possible in reality.

But the loss of innocent life was kept to a minimum.

It is very likely that the involvement of France and Britain played some part in restraining President Trump from the much larger attacks which he seemed – judging by his tweets – to be planning earlier in the week.

London and Paris have long and hard-bought experience in this region, and are well aware of its traps and pitfalls.

Britain also had its own special point to make in this mission. We have ourselves been subject to more than one chemical attack on our own soil, outrages which undoubtedly originated in the Russian state, the same state which stands behind Syria’s despot, President Assad.

We also owe the USA and France a diplomatic debt for standing beside us, and acting together with us, in our expulsions of Russian diplomats.

The support we received from both these old, longstanding friends and allies was unprecedented and selfless.

It is for this reason, not out of subservience to the White House, that the Prime Minister felt she should commit British forces to the operation.

It was important for the world that the action could not be portrayed as a unilateral American mission. She must also have felt that any further delay might look like weakness.

In an ideal world, it would have been better if Mrs May could have taken her case to Parliament. David Cameron set a precedent by his decision to put a previous planned attack on Syria to the vote, and precedent in this country is usually the way that rules are made.

Many who had – and still have – doubts about the operation might have had those doubts dispelled, or at least challenged, by a full debate in the Commons.

As our Survation poll shows, many, perhaps most people in this country remain sceptical about the merits of this intervention and about future similar actions, and would definitely want Parliament to discuss any renewed attacks.

And there is certainly a strong case for the Commons to examine the issue as soon as Parliament returns.

There is nothing like an adversarial debate, in which all facts and arguments are ruthlessly examined, to bring out the truth and reach wise conclusions.

The evidence needs to be probed and discussed. We must also ask what the West should do next to try to end the suffering which has convulsed Syria, so that we can banish for good the horror of gas attacks and restore tranquillity to the ravaged cities of that state.

Missiles have their uses, in administering swift and stern retribution. But they cannot make permanent peace or rebuild Syria’s devastated cities.