It's more likely that Isis will achieve statehood than Cameron coming to the rescue

Bombs alone will never get rid of the group in Syria

There was a telling Tory-on-Tory spat over Syria this weekend. First David Cameron appeared on American television to promise more British support in the fight against Isis. He would, he told NBC viewers, “bring Parliament with him” to help destroy the caliphate in “both countries”. So far, Britain’s military intervention has been limited to Iraq, barring a few Tommy pilots riding along in Yankee airplanes – without parliamentary approval – over Syria. Plainly, the Prime Minister hopes to soon see the RAF flying in the open above Raqqa, the jihadists’ de facto capital in Syria, too.

And it was this ambition – hinted at, if not explicitly stated – that saw him strafed by Julian Lewis, the Conservative chairman of the Defence Select Committee. Cameron’s overtures amounted to further proof, in Lewis’s opinion, that British policy on Syria was being “made up on the hoof”. The accusation was taken seriously enough by CCHQ to draw a denial from Theresa May (though one not much better than “we aren’t, we promise”).

A mess for the Conservative Party; to concerned observers, something more. A gulf has been growing for months between Western policymakers and experts on the topic of Syria, and yet both the British and American governments seem happy to carry on regardless – even if the voice of dissent comes from within.

First of the mistakes is the assumption that Isis can be confronted in Syria using the same tactics as in Iraq, just a hop and a skip across the border. Even if the group could be rattled out of its strongholds by air attacks, the ruination of the civil war between Assad’s regime and much of Syria would see jihadists quickly return.

Some in the corridors of power have woken up to the futility of a Syria policy that includes bombs but no brain: Chuck Hagel, the former US Defence Secretary, was dropped by the Obama administration last year after making noises in this direction; Richard Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, resigned over similar matters in October.

It does not take any kind of expertise to see that the White House’s ambition to train and equip “moderate” rebels in Syria lies in tatters. Just 60 – of a hoped for 3,000 – have been vetted and put through their paces so far. Meanwhile Isis has in fact expanded in Syria despite months of US bombardment. This is the strategy Cameron hopes to ride along with, and is confident will “destroy” the caliphate. I place far more faith with those who now view it as possible that Isis will eventually “win” and establish a state, right down to air travel and passports.

It is a point made by reporter after researcher after author. You cannot pretend Assad does not exist while you go after Isis in Syria (partly because, as Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan reveal in their excellent book, Isis: Inside the Army of Terror, Assad has been covertly working with jihadis, and Isis, for some time). You cannot treat Syria as a military problem and not a political one, though it is certainly easier to do so.

Sunni Muslims need to feel the Syrian state is not waging war on them, or they will turn to the state that offers protection, that being the brutal Islamic one. As yet, Assad offers no such assurance. Either he must be forced out, or a truce struck between the regime and the remaining non-jihadi Syrian brigades – a move Patrick Cockburn among others has advocated. I don’t claim to any insight. Anything, however, would be better than the current mess: bombs away, and forget about tomorrow.