I think it’s a pity that Cameron isn’t being attacked more for being an ideologue divorced from reality. His motivations and ideals are both fantastical (“liberal government for all in Syria”) and motivated by an ideological commitment to “Humanitarianism”.
I am neither a hawk nor a dove. I think there are some situations in which war is necessary- 1939 is for me an example of this- but the need for war is not something one ever rejoices in. It’s at best something nasty that needs to be done at times, like unblocking a sewer. But if choices were being made on conventional rational grounds- the self interest of the nation- we would be allied with the Syrian government, Russia and even Iran. Not because they are nice people, but because they are the practical allies. Being allies doesn’t mean liking each other, it means having common cause, as was the case when we allied with the revolting Stalin and his repugnant regime to defeat Nazi Germany. If Churchill had thought like Cameron, he’d have been primarily interested in “regime change” in the USSR, with disastrous results for all of Europe.
But anyway, even the destruction of ISIL will not make us or the rest of Europe safer in itself, because the enemy is a religious ideology. With whose Saudi backers we are, apparently “allies” while they spend their oil money on funding Wahabi extremism.
We could use the correct alliance to push for humanitarian interests- require that our arming and fighting alongside Assad be dependent on his not committing “war crimes”, and on recognising a Kurdish independent state when the war is won. Instead, all Cameron wants to do is topple Assad which will inevitably result, by one path or another, in the Caliphate returning to Damascus, the old Umayyad capital.