Libya

We are sending military advisors to assist the forces opposing Gaddafi. This has raised the spectre of 'mission creep' — ie, that our involvement might move from humanitarian intervention to our forces fighting on the ground.

Some cite Vietnam as a cautionary tale — in 1950 the US sent advisors — by the fall of Saigon 58,000 US troops had died. Libya is a long way from that but we should make sure we heed the lessons of conflicts where little by little countries get drawn in too much.

The reassurances are there – the number of advisors is only a dozen and they will not be engaged in direct combat. The Government has also made it clear that UN resolution 1973 will be respected. This provides that 'all necessary measures' may be taken to protect civilians but rules out the participation of ground forces.

The support within the Commons was clearly for the no-fly zone and I voted for it. Like many other MPs I am also comfortable with the involvement of these latest advisors but, and it is a critical but, I will be far less happy if there is any suggestion of the engagement of UK forces fighting on the ground. This situation would in my view represent a contravention of the UN resolution and a dangerous escalation.

The case for going into Libya was compelling and we should not forget that. This included the humanitarian need to halt Gaddafi's repression, including the imminent danger of him falling on Benghazi, something that would have resulted in massive loss of life — such as we are currently seeing with the siege of Misurata where hundreds have died as Gaddafi continues to launch shells into residential areas.

That said, maintaining our case means not crossing the line between humanitarian assistance and military adventure.