(1/14) There is no heavier responsibility a Government & (when consulted) Parliament faces than whether to commit our armed forces into combat.
(2/14) Today, as the Cabinet meets, some are seeking to draw lessons from the August 2013 votes in the House of Commons.
(3/14) I was there - in meetings in Downing Street & the Commons - and am struck by how frequently this history is now rewritten by all sides of the debate on intervention.
(4/14) The Policy : Labour's amendment on Syria did not rule out supporting military action: Indeed, Jim Fitzpatrick resigned before the vote because he felt our policy was a conveyer belt to conflict.
(5/14) We offered support conditional on (a) confirmation by the UN weapons inspectors that chemical weapons were used; (b) compelling evidence that the Assad regime was responsible;
(6/14) (c) a vote in the UN security council; (d) a legal basis; (e) time-limited action with precise achievable objectives to deter the future use of chemical weapons.
(7/14) The Votes: The Coalition Government lost its motion not only because of Labour (as they sought subsequently to claim) but because 30 Conservative MPs were unconvinced by the Government’s case.
(8/14) Even after losing its motion it was open to the Government to support the Opposition motion that night, but it refused, so the Opposition amendment also fell.
(9/14) The then Prime Minister immediately announced at the dispatch box that military action in Syria was now off the table. (There was no need for him to make this immediate, fateful judgement.)
(10/14) On both sides of the intervention debate people have since tried - wrongly - to present what was a decision (on specific parliamentary motions that night) as a doctrine.
(11/14) On the night of the votes none of us on either side of he Commons knew - or could have known - that Obama would decide subsequently to step back from his own red line.
(12/14) None of us knew - or could have known - the future course of the conflict. Intervention, limited-intervention & non-intervention all carry risks & consequences, as Iraq, Libya & Syria confirm.
(13/14) Syria represents a profound failure by the international community. The human suffering is shaming & the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.
(14/14) Today, again, there are no risk free or straightforward options in Syria. The situation demands serious thought and purposful action. Learning the right not the wrong lessons from past decisions would be good place to start.
