David Cameron's insistence on a supermajority in the Commons for UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria reflects not a few canny political calculations.
Ostensibly about vesting in the decision to go to war added political legitimacy by making it a decision of the nation, and not the governing party, the British prime minister also adds a lustre of statesmanship to his own role by taking the “difficult”, honourable way.
But Cameron, now likely to put the issue to the vote tomorrow, is weighing other unstated and not so noble considerations. Firstly, he is acutely aware of the deeply tarnished reputation of Tony Blair, the last PM to take the UK into war, and has an interest in protecting his own future standing by implicating as many as possible across the House in the decision this time.
And, most usefully, he has been able to lob a political hand grenade into the deeply divided Labour Party, exposing more than ever the rifts between new leader Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet, MPs and rank and file. Cameron has ensured that for once it really does matter what way Labour MPs vote in opposition – and if the first British collateral damage of the Syria war is Labour, that would be a bonus.
The Blair legacy is even more traumatic for Labour – and the Syrian decision, no less than the leadership election which Corbyn won, has been viewed largely through its prism. The critical truth that wars are won, or lost, on the ground by the poor, bloody infantry is universally acknowledged.
But many are not willing to accept as convincing intelligence service assurances there are 70,000 local troops (Kurds, Syrian rebels, moderate jihadis even....) waiting, willing and able to take the ground softened up from the air by allied planes and finish the job. Memories of previous “intelligence” assessments, WMDs, and prime-ministerial promises are still fresh.
Others argue that the UN Security Council resolution of November 20th approving “all necessary measures” is not sufficiently unambiguous – although it offers moral support for the French bombing of Islamic State, it does not provide a legal basis for military action or cite Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which authorises the use of force. There are fears that the bombing and inevitable civilian casualties will just drive more local Sunnis into the arms of Isis recruiters.
The result is that up to half of Labour MPs, and three quarters of party members, are now believed to be in sympathy with Corbyn against bombing authorisation. Not so his shadow cabinet.
Corbyn’s decision yesterday not to impose the whip against the airstrike represents a necessary compromise that will help, temporarily at least, to stay the hand of conspirators who are now plotting semi-openly to remove him. Cameron, however, is likely tomorrow to get his supermajority. The bombers are revving up already.