Being reflexively anti-war in the UK is hard work - everyone agrees with you all the time, right up until everyone doesn't, and then you're left standing there with nothing but your dick in your hand while everyone else chases off after Gadaffis and Saddams with high-explosives.
It happens again and again and no matter how many times folk slink back later saying, well, we made a few justifiable strategic errors, you just know that you're going to have to issue the same Don't kill people warnings, one meagre year down the line. It's generally a lonely life.
It doesn't matter, how many times your Yazidis get off the mountain without significant UK aid or an entirely theoretical artillery seige of Bengazhi with rapacious house-to-house murders turns into an actual, person-killing, NATO-supported, civilians-running-everywhere seige of Sirte. There's always some compelling reason why this war, this intervention, this bombardment, is radically different to all the other invasions and occupations and airstrike campaigns, and why the horrible news always means that there's no time for rational thought this time before we start blowing that shit up.
Seriously, can anyone name a single UK military operation of the last thirty years that wasn't so urgent, so pressing, so desperate, that there was any time at all available for reasonable consideration or reflection? I can't, and I have to say that I'm getting a bit suspicious about the constancy of the refrain.
I'm not even a pacifist myself - I'm quite in favour of serious violence, within certain constrained circumstances. Nonetheless, if you're anti-war, that should mean something - it should relate to an actual principle about warfare that you have to consider and either stick to or throw aside out of absolute necessity, rather than easily turning a 180 on the spot and deciding that this war is actually awesome.
And yet, and yet. Every single bombing campaign, it's the same. We have no choice.