"War is communication by other means" Winston Churchill.
Obviously, the telephone approach made by Conservative Ministers to Labour M.P.s in the UK parliament has been unsuccessful so far, as the situation over bombing Syria as a solution to conquering terrorism and removing President Assad as the elected president is not going down very well. UK Prime Minister Cameron needs a substantial amount of votes as a majority for the bombing, and until he feels that a substantial majoriy has been secured, he won't put the motion before Parliament. Hedoesn't want to get egg on his face (a loss of face in other words, if the UK refuses to comply) as far as ISIS is concerned.
The debate is now turning on whether there should be a 3 line whip by the Labour Leadership placed on its M.P.s to vote against bombing Syria, or whether the vote should be left to the individual consciences of M.P.s. The decision to go to war on ISIS is on a knife edge, and Conservative strategy is obviously based on the individual conscience approach, as that would appear to be the one most likely to win...though, they would, at a pinch, support a 3 line whip if the Labour whip was saying " Vote To Bomb Syria".
The Conservatives are also having trouble with individual consciences in their own political party, and amongst certain sections of the electorate, in that many people and organisations are not convinced that Bombing Syria and removing Assad is quite the solution to terrorist operations being conducted against the UK, or removing terrorism or the sources of terrorism from the Middle East in general, although there are, as always, a substantial amount of people, vested interests and think tanks who would support the goverment doing just that. Also, there is a dilemma for Labour M.P.s who, if they don't obey the whip if one is imposed, may find it difficult to get selected as an M.P. next time, or be censored by their constituency management teams who are on the whole, against bombing Syria. This is called the "grass roots support" argument. Individual conscience as a voting standard has its consequences in politics and, because of the ramifications in the future, can have a disastrous effect.
So far, apart from "getting our own back" or "teaching the terrorists a lesson" our Conservative government hasn't got a solution, in my view. The terrorists who carried out the massacre in France were ISIS, who were trained or based in Iraq, mostly, with a few elements in parts of Syria which they have taken over are now the enemy, now that Saddam Hussien and his evil regime has disappeared, after the success of "Mission Accomplished" and the removal of Iraq as a threat. ISIS, Islamic State, or ISIl, was of course, formed out of the rump of ex soldiers mainly Sunnis and other disgruntled Iraqis, who took over northern Iraq, stole all the international gold and arms in Iraq, that they could get their hands on, and, due to the campaign of mass bombing and terror conducted by those nation states involved in the air strikes, is increasingly appealing to stupid young Muslims from all over Europe, some of whom, "brainwashed" by the "magnificent" war propoganda and individual acts of heroism through beheading and murdering hostages including helpers are rushing to support their brothers and comrades against the Kaffir...i.e. us.
see url: https://cryptome.org/2015/11/abdelhamid-abaaoud.pdf
It is interesting to note that more Muslims, combatants, non-combatants and ordinary civilians and citizens have been killed in a day by mass bombings from nation states air forces, drones, missiles etc. than western citizens have been killed in years by islaamic terrorists, including 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
As the mass migration to Europe of Syrians and other persecuted Muslims takes place due to the increased instability and greater likelyhood of their being bombed to bits, moves by the Turkish and European politicans to provide funding for preventative and containment measures are taking place with the award of a couple of billion Euros by the EC to the Turkish government to help them to secure their borders with Syria, stop terrorists getting access to Syria, contain the migrants, build fences and camps, and organising passes and means of transit, for migrants passing through their country. In return for these measures, the Turkish government, and remember that Turkey is mainly a Muslim country with its own problems with Kurds and other freedom fighters struggling for territory and a fair crack of the whip, are trying to negotiate entry into the European Community so that they can improve their standards of living and their trading arrangements and political influence in Europe. European politicians, though broadly in favour of such an event, due mainly to their lust for building a bigger empire and bigger markets, have been forced to resist so far, due to the resistance of their constituents, the democrats, the human rights activists, some political parties and lobby groups and the lack of business and economic management accountancy and controls, which at present exist in Turkey.
As yet, there has been no call for a regime change in Turkey. Turkey, at the moment, is very volatile and there could be a change in leadership to a more Muslim centred democracy or Islaamic state...
Russia, which is trying its darndest to struggle against regime change in Syria by laying into the terrorists who are considered by the west to be freedom and liberation fighters, and supported by them politically, and by supplying military materiels, intelligence and other resources, is not helping matters by allegedly flying into Turkish and NATO airspace.
Some of you, who are old enough, may remember the Cuban Crisis where the old Soviet Union sent missiles to Cuba and opened bases for the purposes of getting ready to retaliate on the US for surrounding the Soviet Union with missile bases with nuclear missiles pointing at major Soviet cities. One of those nuclear bases was in Turkey. This US strategy was highly disconcerting to the Soviets, who were becoming convinced that the US was getting ready to launch a nuclear war against them. As part of the defeat of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in the crisis, Kennedy quietly and secretly agreed to remove such US nuclear bases, as he wanted to save face, even though it was more important than saving the world from nuclear disaster. It appears that helping the Muslims in the "saving of face" by caving in, is not just a Muslim or Arab characteristic. A little bit of hubris does one good...
It is as well to remember that the policy of getting rid of an elected premier or president of a country by force is against the rules and spirit of the United Nations Charter and one which the UN will never support. Hence, all the manoeuvering going on to avoid the UN getting involved. One wonders what the peoples and establishments of the Western world would think if the Chinese were to start promoting regime change in the US or the UK or Europe by violent means...but there you are...Perish the thought....:-) .
Maybe the world would be better off if we were to get rid of the United Nations Charter, and the U.N. and human rights all together. It would allow for more room for military action by the world's more aggressive nation states and they wouldn't need to differentiate between one kind of dictator or another.