Prime Minister Cameron was right to rule out any co-operation with Assad in the fight against ISIS. He was also right not to seek Parliament's support for possible action in Syria, writes Nehad Ismail.
In the House of Lords, former Chief of the General Staff Lord Dannatt warned that "attacking ISIL in Iraq but not in Syria is dealing with half the problem".
"How the hell can you win the war when most of your enemy can end up in a country you can't get involved in?" Another former CGS, Lord Richards, was quoted in The Sunday Times. "Islamic State cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone and boots on the ground are needed to take them on."
But the UK position's is problematic. Having secured a majority in favour of air-strikes in Iraq, David Cameron has indicated that there is "a strong case" for extending air-strikes against what he calls "psychopathic" ISIS from Iraq into Syria. The UK is prepared to intervene to avert a humanitarian catastrophe without prior Parliamentary approval. Ed Miliband, who thwarted action against Assad last year, is again demanding a UN Security Council Resolution to validate any military action. His disingenuousness is transparent. The Russian veto would inevitably scupper any proposed Resolution, and he knows it.