Labour’s dilemmas over support for bombing Isis in Syria

John Crace (Dave the mighty slayer, 27 November) succinctly and wittily points the reasons why we should not rush to bomb in Syria. I can add little except the perspective of one Labour party member that such actions would be wrong on all counts. We will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not safer; innocent civilians will be killed and then forgotten; there is no agreement as to a plan for government in Syria; there is no prospect of wide international collaboration; and, as always, the legality is open to debate.

The call to arms is an understandable but mistaken response to tragedy. But, asJeremy Corbyn contends, we should take time to assess what to do. I did not vote for Corbyn, but in this he provides the leadership that Ed Miliband did two years ago: air attacks are wrong and should not take place. It would appear that too many Labour MPs have spoken, indeed shouted, their views. I would like to see Labour MPs refusing to back the bombing of Syria. That seems unlikely. A free vote is probable. But it is time for MPs to remember that they owe loyalty to the elected leader, and that should influence the way that they behave.

Yes, let us have disagreements but many of us wonder if MPs have the smallest understanding of the way that their behaviour disheartens their own supporters. On the grounds of morality and effectiveness I call on Labour MPs to vote against bombing in Syria. And I call on them to find a way to express differences that is not calculated to diminish the elected leader.
Roger Clough
Emeritus professor, Lancaster University

• There is no shortage of bombs in Syria. It is the number of targets that decides the number of bombs – not the number of countries. The case for joining the coalition is nothing to do with numbers of bombs and everything to do with sharing the responsibility and being involved in the decision-making. Britain has well recognised diplomatic skills that will not be used unless we are part of that coalition. The case against is the uncertainty of the post-conflict policy. Sadly, the UN is not able to play the part it was designed for because Russia and China do not accept regime change as an acceptable policy.

This is a difficult decision although marginally I would support involvement so that we can influence the post-conflict policies. The problem for the Labour party is different. That problem is about leadership or rather lack of it. If that is not resolved soon we will lose the next election and possibly the one after that.