So whilst I was in the far East last week, quite a big fuss was made on the news agenda there about this debate that was happening in the UK about bombing Syria.
Firstly, I had hoped to avoid this debate, so it was a bit disappointing to still be assailed with it.
Then the debate, as ever, meant nothing. There is no plan to get rid of ISIS, there semms little mention of unhelpful facts that the Russians keep bringing up like the role of Turkey and then the peaceniks just say war is bad as if that is all that needs to be said.
Anyway, there was a vote and now we are bombing tiny bits of Syria as well as tiny bits of Iraq. Already the blowback has started, with stabbings in London and now in Abingdon today 'triggered' by our involvement.
Where was the real debate about WTF to do about radical Islam in our own country? This surely is the real pressing security need. Wiping out ISIS will be fun and is no doubt nescesary, but it is not the top level defence of the realm requirement.
Indeed, given attacking Syria will likely increase domestic terror attacks (it has already) then surely the most important thing to do is investment and working towards curbing these. Then thinking about the partial source and inspiration - preferably after long chats with friend and foe to find an actual workable strategy.
At the moment, Syria looks a lot like Libya on steroids, in fact had Gaddafi survived he would be a Assad clone for how the West viewed him. Libya did not work out so well, so how will Syria.
Finally, more to the point. How stupid are our politicians? Having the wrong debate about the wrong issues and turning it into a big deal?