DAVID CAMERON passes off as normal behaviour the fact that British service personnel are engaged in illegal military activities specifically rejected by Parliament.

His comment that embedding British forces with foreign units has been going on for over 60 years misses the point.

It is no secret that RAF crews have at times been seconded to the armed forces of various Arab emirates to put down rebellions.

As disgusting as this was, it was in line with government backing for brutal and corrupt dictatorships in the region at that time.

What is abnormal is that Parliament should reject the idea of launching air raids in Syria only for the Prime Minister to go behind its back by “embedding” RAF personnel in other forces.

When Cameron made his original call, scuppered largely by Ed Miliband’s refusal to play along, his intention was to bomb bases and forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.

This would have helped the expansionist cause of the Islamic State (Isis) death cult, which enjoys co-operation from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other regional states.

Switching its bombing targets from government formations to those of Isis in response to the slaughter of British citizens in Tunisia is questionable on a number of counts.

Britain is not at war with Syria, which is a member of the United Nations.

International law classifies attacks not sanctioned by the Damascus government or by the UN security council as war crimes, irrespective of what the targets are.

Isis will not be defeated by aerial bombing, no matter how many impressive video films of pinpoint raids are screened on TV.

Extremist forces have only been halted or turned back by the bravery of local forces meeting Isis head on.

None of the Nato powers that destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is prepared to put boots on the ground, so they play to the gallery by launching air raids from 35,000 feet and claim to be making a difference.

Neither Cameron nor Barack Obama sees fit to question how and from where Isis gets finance and recruits and what role is played by their allies in the region.

Which countries provide experts to run captured oilfields in Iraq and Syria and which benefit from illegally exported fuel?

Isis may lie behind the slaughter in Sousse, but it was British and French warplanes that turned the tide in Libya by siding with opposition paramilitary groups against an eccentric but secular government.

The repressive regimes of Iraq and Libya, ruled by Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi, were destroyed by Nato, enabling Isis to capitalise on the chaos created.

Our ruling class and political elite have, with few exceptions, refused to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Cameron’s disregard for decisions taken by Parliament indicates that our misleaders intend to continue in the same vein.

Western politicians should dispense with the fiction that there is a ready-made democratic alternative waiting to replace Assad and should make common cause with Damascus to defeat Isis.

This means telling Riyadh and other dictatorial emirates to turn off the tap of recruits, weapons and funds.

They should also condemn Turkey’s support for Isis in northern Syria as a way to weaken the Kurdish national struggle.

Effective opposition to the reactionary phenomenon that is Isis can only be built on a new political approach that recognises Palestinian and Kurdish national rights, supports democracy and ends decades of imperialist domination and exploitation.