The Observer view on whether there is a case for Britain bombing Syria

Britain is soon to make a momentous decision – whether to join the air campaign against Isis in its Syrian strongholds, with all the risks such a move involves. In 2002-03, this country conducted a far-reaching, impassioned debate about whether Britain should join in the looming US invasion of Iraq. In the event, the wrong decision was taken. Many, including this newspaper, reached a mistaken conclusion, namely that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, in all its various manifestations, outweighed the risk of attacking and occupying a sovereign state without UN authorisation. The consequences of that miscalculation remain with us to this day.

A dozen years later, the long-simmering debate over whether Britain should extend into Syria its aerial bombing campaign against Islamic State terrorist forces in Iraq is coming to the boil, given added impetus by Friday night’s unanimous UN Security Council resolution urging members to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress Isis terrorism on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq.

It is vitally important the mistakes made in 2003 are not repeated. Given the continuing, inexcusable delay to the Chilcot inquiry’s report into the Iraq war, it is not yet possible to understand fully the whys and wherefores of that disastrous conflict. This gap in the official record makes a rigorous examination of the case for military action in Syria all the more pressing.

It is necessary, first of all, to be clear what is not being proposed. If David Cameron brings this matter to a vote in the House of Commons, authorisation will be sought for air strikes alone. Unlike Iraq, a ground invasion involving large numbers of British troops is not contemplated in Syria at this time. Nor are Britain’s allies, including the US, proposing such an invasion. Furthermore, any military action would be aimed at Isis and its collaborators, not the Syrian state or its government and leaders. This would not be an exercise in regime change.

Just as importantly, according to David Cameron, expanded British military action would occur in tandem with renewed inter-national peace efforts, mediated by the UN. The talks prospectively include President Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite regime and the main Sunni opposition groups, but exclude terror organisations such as Isis and the al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front. In Mr Cameron’s words, expanded bombing would be but one part of a “comprehensive strategy”.