We shouldn’t focus solely on the Syria vote when assessing Parliament’s power over military deployments

In August 2013, the House of Commons rejected a Government proposal to intervene in Syria following that country’s regime’s use of chemical weapons. The vote proved to be most consequential, with some arguing that it led to the United States ultimately withdrawing its proposals to lead the campaign against the Syrian tyrant Bashar Al-Assad. Louise Thompson argues that the vote was very significant, but that the Iraq war vote of 2003 was just as significant – with the main difference being that the House assented to the then-Prime Minister’s plans ten years earlier.