I see advocates of UK military intervention in Syria are using the media to claim we should have intervened more by deploying substantial force. They accuse those of us who said no to more force being used of helping create the recapture of Aleppo by Assad.
When we had the debate in 2013 it was no part of my case that Syria would have a peaceful and happy future without our intervention. It was simply to argue that our intervention might do more harm than good. As most people in the UK did not want either Assad or ISIL to win and they were the two combatants it was difficult to see how we could intervene successfully. Surely you only bomb and fight in someone else’s country if you have a legal right and think you can make things better by doing so?
Those who think our intervention in 2013 could have solved the problem need to explain how they could have swept away all the evil forces in Syria and created a peaceful and democratic government. Whilst arguing this they need to explain why our military intervention in Libya did not bring this about there, and why there is still serious fighting in Iraq.