For a fragile leader like Cameron, the past is a treacherous guide | Steve Richards

Cameron’s contortion over Syria reminds us of his inexperience. But he is further constrained by a fundamental change in attitudes to conflict

They are like characters in the darkest of film noir movies. Political leaders recognise mistakes made by their predecessors and yet feel compelled to make them all over again. This is what David Cameron and Nick Clegg have done in relation to Syria. “This is not Iraq,” they declared repeatedly in the buildup to Thursday night’s astonishing vote in the Commons. As they made their fearful protestations they deployed very similar arguments to those that were advanced 10 years ago.

Once more MPs were told that doing nothing was riskier than acting. The intelligence justified action. The British government would not wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their work because it was working to a US-led military timetable. Cameron was not explicit on that last point, but there was no doubt that parliament was recalled because President Obama wanted to act and the prime minister sought to be with him, shoulder to shoulder as Tony Blair would have put it. Of course the cast and precise context were very different to Iraq, but I bumped into despairing MPs from all three parties who declared gloomily and with justification, “Here we go again”.

Except, we are not going there again. MPs would not let Cameron take the familiar steps towards war, and not only because the case was unconvincing. The lessons of Iraq relate to the way the arguments were put in advance, but also to the bloody nightmare that followed. Suddenly a leader of the opposition was determining foreign policy on the biggest issue of them all, and a powerless prime minister had no choice but to dance to his tunes.

Partly trapped by the past as well, Ed Miliband stumbled to an authority enhancing position, not ruling out force but demanding more time. He kept all options open – an act of nervy, ruthless expediency, but one that led to an unequivocal outcome. There would be no military intervention from Britain in Syria.

The consequences are very significant: for Cameron’s own self-esteem, and his relationship with his party and the Commons. The events of the past few days will be a huge blow to Cameron personally as they would be to any prime minister. Earlier in the week he had been envisaging a military venture with the mighty US president. Meetings of the UN security council were held, phone calls with world leaders made: all part of that mesmerising choreography that leads to war. Perhaps he contemplated a prime ministerial TV broadcast as the missiles were fired.

Instead he was in the humiliating position of phoning Obama to tell him he could not take part. Cameron cannot be a commanding leader in foreign affairs this side of an election. He is now a prime minister carrying out parliament’s will and not his own. When he makes further statements on Syria he might as well begin by declaring he …read more