The weakness of Jeremy Corbyn

Theresa May will face the House of Commons today to explain her decision to authorise British missile strikes on Syria without first seeking the agreement of Parliament. The Prime Minister has no constitutional obligation to consult MPS before taking military action but executive prerogative in this area has been constrained by a convention established at the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Mrs May and the Cabinet judged both that the national interest was served by joining the US and France in the strikes on Saturday morning and that this could be justified without recourse to Parliament.

In our view she was right on both counts. The limited and proportionate military action was designed to demonstrate to President Assad that he could not flout international law on the use of chemical weapons with impunity.

As to the timing, we rely on the Government to make a judgment in the national interest, as Mrs May did. When they come to consider the prudence of that decision, MPS need to ask themselves what alternative was available.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has sought to raise a whole host of different strategies that he says could have been followed. These include a Un-backed inspection of Syrian chemical capabilities and a political initiative to bring about peace. His approach is not so much delusional as mendacious, since he knows that Russia will veto any UN resolution against Syria and President Assad has no interest in a political solution now that he is close to victory.

Mr Corbyn posits unrealistic and unworkable alternatives to disguise the fact that he is opposed to military action in almost any circumstances. But he refuses to admit it because he knows the public would regard such a character trait as untenable in someone who aspires to be prime minister.

He has even opposed diplomatic pressure on Russia over the Salisbury poisoning, demanding “absolute proof ” that Moscow was involved, as if such clarity is possible when attempted assassination, by its very nature, is shrouded in secrecy and lies.

Sometimes it is necessary to take up arms, either in national defence or to uphold international law on humanitarian grounds. Mr Corbyn has shown unequivocally that he would invariably fail that test. There is nothing inherently wrong with pacifism, but it emphatically cannot become the overriding doctrine of British foreign policy.