LISTENING to the House of Commons debate on the motion to bomb Islamic State targets in Iraq, I was struck by the generally high calibre of the speeches and interventions from both sides of the House. Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition, was particularly impressive in marshalling his arguments.

Having pulled the rug from under Prime Minister David Cameron’s feet last year by opposing the motion to bomb Syria, Miliband now lent his full support to air strikes against IS. Calmly and logically, he called for upholding “a world order supported by laws and rules”.

Also read: Despite Briton’s murder, UK resists calls for anti-IS strikes

Earlier, Cameron had introduced the motion by informing the House of the threat posed by what he referred to as ISIL to Iraq, the region and the civilised world. The word most commonly used to describe this menace in the entire debate was barbaric. Many instances of the group’s cruelty and ruthlessness were given, and even those who spoke to oppose the motion had no sympathy for these killers.

George Galloway, the maverick MP from Bradford West, was as loud and brash as ever. Denouncing other members for their support of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he accused them of moving ‘imaginary armies’ by thinking that countries like Saudi Arabia — the source of the IS ideology — and the UAE would do much of the fighting. But he insisted that regional states should be doing the fighting and not Britain and the United States, who, according to Galloway, “should not be returning to the scene of the 2003 crime”. He was particularly dismissive of the American plan to train and arm the Free Syrian Army, stating that already, it had received hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and arms. All too often, he said, these weapons had turned up in the hands of extremist groups.

Many members, while reluctantly supporting the motion, were clearly troubled by its implications. They questioned the purpose of air attacks in Iraq without following up in Syria. And above all, they asked how success could be achieved unless ground forces took on the IS fighters and recovered captured territory. Again and again, questions were raised about the absence of Arab boots on the ground.

Others asked what the government was doing to counter the threat posed by radicalised young British Muslims who had gone to Syria to fight alongside extremist groups there. Above all, members wanted to be reassured that Britain would not be dragged into yet another unending conflict. But this concern was balanced by the danger posed by not acting.

All in all, the debate was well informed and reflected the wider concerns about the uncertainties ahead being articulated in the media and the general public. Even though the outcome of the vote was predictable, given the support promised by the three major parties, a number of MPs did vote against the motion. As Cameron said in his opening speech, “the shadow of 2003 hangs heavy over this House.”

Muslim members were vociferous in their condemnation of IS. Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP from Birmingham, called it the un-Islamic State. Shabana Mahmood, also representing a district of Birmingham, proclaimed herself to be a Sunni Muslim revolted by IS brutalities, and repudiated its claim of defending Sunnis. According to her, the members of IS should be “behind bars, or underground — six feet under”. She said her faith had been hijacked by this terrorist group, and although fearful of civilian casualties in a bombing campaign, she supported the motion.

Rory Stewart, chair of Commons defence watchdog, spoke about the Shia-Sunni conflict that is at the heart of the ongoing crisis. He made the point that unless the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran could be defused, tensions in the region would continue to fuel violence. The sectarian nature of the Iraqi government that had antagonised large sections of the Sunni community had to be changed to better accommodate minority interests.

Considering that currently Britain is only committing its six Tornado fighter-bombers stationed in Cyprus, it would appear that there was a lot of talking about a relatively small military commitment. But important principles were involved in the debate. The government had to make a case for sending British pilots into harm’s way, and persuade a majority to support it. This was specially important after the 2003 military campaign in Iraq authorised by a Parliament that had been fooled by Tony Blair into supporting him.

I was also struck by the civility with which the debate was conducted. Even when disagreeing, members referred to each other as “the right honourable member”, and deferred to colleagues wishing to make a point.

These proceedings were a far cry from our parliamentary debate on action against the Taliban. Apart from a lack of consensus and civility, there was a distinct absence of coherence and consistency. Members were happy to score points rather than make constructive contributions. The result was a chaotic free-for-all that clarified nothing and confused everything.

One interesting intervention came from Jesse Norman, Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire, who pointed out that before the 2003 parliamentary debate authorising the attack on Iraq, there was no precedence for seeking prior approval. He said it was Parliament’s right to question and criticise military action, but if it had voted to approve it, it lost this prerogative. This is very different from the American constitution that limits the President’s power to wage war.

When the votes were counted at the end of the seven-hour debate, the ayes had it by 524 votes to 43. Clearly, the proceedings had changed many minds.

Published in Dawn, September 29th, 2014