The parallels with the immediate aftermath of September 2001 are chilling. In that case, it is reasonable to assume that the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq had been taken and then the strategy back-solved. Bush and his amoral poodle spent eighteen months building straw men, culminating in the ultimate lies of imminent threat from Iraq and there being an outcome that promoted stability and peace. Thinking people didn't believe it then, and they shouldn't believe it now.
Where Cameron and his minions score is in their combination of fear and pseudo-patriotism. Nobody wants there to be an escalation in violence or for innocent people to be attacked - but by ratcheting up the perceived rather than real risks he is playing to a particular narrative. There is no real rebuttal to the assertion that increased bellicosity abroad will increase the risk from both external and domestic terrorism, but this is portrayed as a price worth paying - almost, subliminally, as a contribution to our "heroes" forced into political game-playing.
A strategy for Syria and Iraq, if it were ever to emerge, would need to address demography, geography and politics. It is bound up with the wider Middle East, including the continued impasse that Blair has done nothing to address around Israel's security and behaviours, and the shift in balance of the world economy away from carbon-based energy. Therefore it is complicated, and not best addressed through gesture attacks which can be portrayed as of equivalent intent to the vile murders of civilians elsewhere in the world.
Cameron and Philip Hammond, whose vacuity and arrogance grow with the years, do not appear to care about the consequences. If they did, they would have worked much more closely with the United Nation to bring in Russia and other neighbouring countries into an effective ground-based force to flush out the outlaws. They have fallen into the messianic trap that laid waste to Blair's credibility and British prestige - albeit demonstrating that the great white elephant of Trident replacement will erode our ability to support such actions.
Jeremy Corbyn's position has been consistent. It is perfectly possible, despite the barrage of criticism directed at him, to understand that his analysis is sincere and based around the experience of the damage that Blair's Republican agenda inflicted not just on his party but on the country. It may not be perfect, but it is as worthy of respect as any others - it is not a matter where party politics provides a reliable or relevant guide. Putting forward views based on experience and historical evidence is not a crime.
Yet from the dribbling you would have thought that the issue being discussed is not that of how to eliminate a rogue insurgency outwit international law, but how to create civil war within the Labour Party. Since Corbyn's election, there has been an unsubtle suggestion that the will of members is in some way a "mistake", to be corrected by a Blairite coup within the Parliamentary Party. As many of those advancing it are contemptuous of any democratic activity this is not surprising, but it is a prime example of distraction tactics.
Cameron, when he was in starry-eyed mode back in 2006, claimed to want to the Blair's successor. He is achieving that on every level. It remains to be hoped that both of them are called to account for their gambling with other people's lives and their hubris that assumes that they alone have the knowledge and wisdom that subverts international law and which does absolutely nothing to increase either citizen safety or national prestige.