THE overwhelming government victory at the end of the ten-hour House of Commons debate over the bombing of the militant Islamic State group in Syria came as no surprise. After the Paris attacks, there is a rising groundswell of support for Britain to ‘do something’ in response. And increasingly, that ‘something’ consists of bombing some faraway targets in the desert.

Bombing has become the overseas equivalent of setting up an enquiry committee when things go wrong at home, and there’s an outcry for those in power to take action. The idea is to temporise and give the impression that the government is doing something when in actual fact, it is merely kicking the ball into the tall grass.

So for a few days, we will be fed photographs and videos of the brave Royal Air Force pilots flying off from the British air base in Cyprus to bomb a foe that has no aircraft or air defence systems to defend itself. This is not to suggest that the IS should not be pounded morning, noon and night. But at the end of the day, how much will a small British contribution achieve when the Americans and sundry allies have been flying missions over Syria for over a year? In this period, they have been mysteriously unable to knock out the IS’s oil infrastructure that has been earning them a billion dollars a year.

David Cameron, in his speech before the House of Commons last week, claimed that the British air campaign would be supported on the ground by 70,000 ‘moderate troops’. This claim was mocked by many, including the redoubtable Robert Fisk who revised the figure down to 70. If there is this large army waiting in the wings for British intervention before entering the fray, one wonders why they did not join the battle when the Americans began flying missions over Syria. We all recall the embarrassment suffered by the Pentagon when it had to admit before a Congressional committee that out of the hundreds of moderates it had trained and armed, only half a dozen or so were actually fighting IS. The rest had handed over their American-supplied weapons to various Islamist groups. Perhaps Cameron’s moderates are made of sterner stuff than Obama’s.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, had a torrid time with his speech opposing the air campaign over Syria. Constantly heckled from the government benches, he found it hard to make a case for his pacifist position. But he managed to embarrass the prime minister by reminding him of his characterisation of those opposed to bombing as ‘terrorist sympathisers’. After Corbyn declared that Labour members could vote according to their conscience, many sided with the government. This spared Labour the humiliation of having their party split over the vote.

It is clear that in the absence of a coherent strategy and a viable force in place, Cameron is simply trying to assert Britain’s position as a major player. As he put it in his speech, Britain should be fighting with its major allies, the United States and France. But this didn’t do much good in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. In fact, France refused to go to war in Iraq, earning much abuse from the US at the time. And Justin Trudeau, the new Canadian prime minister, has decided to withdraw his jet fighters from the Syrian conflict.

While there is much wishful thinking about moderates and Kurds doing the ground fighting against the IS, the fact remains that thus far, the only capable ground troops available are in the Syrian army. Lately, they have been regaining some of the ground lost to rebels, thanks to Russian air support. The Kurds will fight to defend their land in Iraq and Syria, but have no motivation to do the fighting for others. They are also being bombed regularly by the Turks, supposedly allies against the IS. We have already seen that the moderates are figments of Cameron’s imagination.

By downing a Russian passenger plane over the Sinai last month, and then by launching the audacious and bloody attacks in Paris, the IS appears to be daring Russia and the West to send in ground troops. But thus far, apart from a handful of American Special Forces, governments have been reluctant to put their soldiers in harm’s way. Probably, they recall the hard lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Also, while millions in the West may want their governments ‘to do something’, this does not include sending in troops. Everybody wants a no-risk line of action; above all, nobody wants to see grisly videos of captured troops being beheaded on the sands of Syria. As long as there is little stomach to put the proverbial boots on the ground, there will be little progress in this war of clashing agendas.

In a rational world, allies decide on priorities and act against the most immediate threat before shifting their attention to the next. Currently, there is no consensus on even this basic requirement. The Saudis and Turks hate the Assad regime more than they do the IS. The Russians and the Iranians are sworn to uphold their beleaguered ally, while the Americans are slowly coming around to accepting that Assad can stay on for the time being.

The truth is that no matter how much blood Bashar al-Assad has on his hands, he is at least committed to safeguarding Syria’s many minorities. Imagine the bloodbath of Alawites, Christians, Kurds and Maronites that would take place if the government fell to the many Sunni extremist groups currently fighting in Syria.

More and more, it seems that the partition of Syria is the only viable long-term solution.

Twitter: @irfan_husain

Published in Dawn, December 7th, 2015