This is how I would describe Britain’s decision to bomb Islamic State (IS) militants in Syria. In the right direction, for two reasons. First, because Isis militants have played an important part in the devastation of the region and its people. They have carried out crucifixions, mass shootings and beheadings. They have destroyed some of the most iconic buildings in Palmyra and otherwise laid waste to and looted archaeological and historical sites. Their ongoing rampage is one of the causes of the Syrian refugee crisis.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Isis is clearly expansionist and likes to export its franchise to places like Paris. What that means is that even the most zealous non-interventionist would have a hard time arguing their case.

Second, because war is likely a good solution in this instance. Whether or not it’s the best one, we will never know. Certainly history shows us that war can be an effective solution. World War I, for example, was probably avoidable and achieved very little. World War II was by all accounts unavoidable, and the outcome was the end of the Nazi threat.

To say that war should be a last resort is to peddle a platitude. Question is, how many deaths does it take for a situation to qualify as a last resort? The answer must be that we often have no way of telling the last resort from the too late.

The point is that war is a means by which Isis can be eliminated. It is unlikely to achieve a general peace in the region. For that to happen, a lot would have to change – and that includes the double standards and deceit that plague relations between the West and Middle Eastern countries generally.

Still, if the objective is to eliminate Isis specifically, war is a reasonable option. Which is why I think last Wednesday’s vote in the British parliament was justified. I also think it was the wrong move.

The problem is that Britain is now at-war-but-not-quite. If my premise is right, the MPs should have voted to wage war against Isis. Instead, they voted to authorise the bombing of Isis positions. And while war and bombing often go together, they are not quite the same thing.

There is one, and only one, way in which war can be useful. It involves a definable threat, a clear objective to elimi­nate it, and the application of full military might to do so as swiftly and with as little damage as possible.

Bombing Isis in Syria is nothing of the sort. David Cameron (and his supporters for the night, including the unlikely Hilary Benn) made much of the moral obligation to act. Benn in particular drew the weary and predictable parallels with World War II and such.

Even as they made the case for war, they won a vote not to have one

The unfunny thing is that even as they made the case for war, they won a vote not to have one. Cameron was probably keen to come across as a decisive and blokey leader, a worthy peer to men like Hollande and Putin. (The worthiness of these two is another matter.)

The pacifist crowd outside the Houses of Parliament fell for it, and called him hawkish. I suspect it was just the kind of compliment he had hoped for. Wednesday was a political victory for Cameron. He achieved a lot by doing very little.

The reason I call the vote unfunny is that war can be rather like knowledge. A little of it often ends up making matters worse for those involved. Bombing will not eliminate Isis. Benn unwittingly said as much when he wheeled out a list of the damage done to Isis by earlier bombing raids. Only the point should not be to damage Isis, but rather to eliminate it.

Cameron & Co. know exactly what that would require. They also have the military capability to achieve it. As is, they seem to be hoping that Isis will suffer a few remote-controlled explosions and go away. Chances are they’re wrong.

Bombing without boots on the ground is not war, but rather a kind of punitive expedition. It is no coincidence that France and Britain sent out their jets hot on the heels of Paris. And, while punitive expeditions might work against a sensible enemy, they are unlikely to achieve anything with fanatics of the Isis type.

They will also punish swathes of the wrong people. The pacifists are right to say that innocent lives will be lost. What’s worse is that they will be lost uselessly. Bombing will scorch the snake. Should the snake decide to shed its skin, it will emerge stronger than ever.

The pacifists are also right about the unintended consequences. Lethal though it may be, aerial bombing is by its very nature a distant and disengaged kind of warfare. It is especially so when bombs are dropped in the middle of the night by invisible jets.

Besides, war – and especially one which departs from the moral Benn ground – should also be about risk. The logic is that if one believes in a cause, one should be prepared to take risks to uphold it. Only there’s little, if any, risk in dropping bombs at night from 30,000 feet.

The psychology of bombing means that it is going to be very hard to win the sympathy and support of local populations in Syria. Now that’s very good news indeed for Isis, because a broken, alienated and disillusioned population is both an easy one to lord over and a perfect recruiting ground for militants.

If this is a war on terror, it is not a useful one. It lacks a clear objective, stops far short of applying full military might, and is likely to cause more harm than good. The point is to commit fully, or not at all.

mafalzon@hotmail.com