Is rush to war the best plan?

But mice and men are adaptable creatures, able to change to their environment and make the most of their surroundings to ensure their survival.

Where they differ, however, is that mice make plans as simple as 'where can I find some cheese', or 'how can I make sure my babies aren't eaten by cats'.

Man, on the other hand, is a much more complicated beast. He doesn't just want cheese, he wants ALL the cheese, and the crackers, and the port and the grapes, etc, etc.

He knows his babies won't be eaten by predators, but he wants to make sure they're brought up privileged, in a world where they won't ever have to face anything that could harm them.

The problem with Man, really, is that he has the capability to change the world to better suit his own needs and desires. While a mouse will only use whatever space it requires to live, or scavenge however much food it needs to survive, man will gather and horde resources then use them to gather and horde more resources, doing his best to make sure he has more than anyone else.

If a mouse's plan to steal a crumb of food is thwarted, it'll trot off and find something else to eat.

But when Man's plans to, say, bomb a country 3,000 miles away back to the stone age fail to get the support they need, he'll simply wait a couple of years until the dust settles, switch his targets to another bunch of people in the same distant country, then use bullying tactics and threatening language to recalibrate his plans and, boom. Literally.

This week, we saw democracy in action, when the leader of our country said anyone who didn't want to fire long range missiles at villages and towns already under aerial attack by the US, Russia, and a France, was a terrorist sympathiser.

He said we've learned our lessons from a previous leader's ill-advised, and possibly illegal, war. That war saw us bombing villages and towns thousands of miles away alongside our allies, and ended up destroying thousands of lives, and causing a rise in hatred of the West throughout the region, drawing hundreds more to the terrorists' cause and worsening the global situation more than a decade later.

This one, we're told, will be different. Apparently, we've got the support of 70,000 local troops in the area, which is good to know.

As it stands at the moment, we won't be putting "boots on the ground" (that term which instantly de-humanises the brave men and women of our armed forces to help us forget these are actual people with lives and families we're sending out to get involved in likely hotspots), but we'll no doubt be sending some troops out to coordinate training.

The airstrikes will keep Britain safe, by striking Daesh/ISIS/IS on their home turf, we're told (though we definitely won't be bombing Belgium, where the most recent and horrific terrorist attacks were apparently masterminded).

These airstrikes are so technologically advanced, they definitely won't spread disillusion and anger among the innocent civilians and families in the area who are affected by the destruction of their homes and infrastructure. Or collateral damage, as they'll be rebranded.

Before I'm branded a terrorist sympathiser or a loony lefty, I should say that obviously, we need to do something about whatever we're calling the terrorists this week. I'm just not sure rushing into airstrikes so there's war by Christmas is the right move.

As proud as I am of every branch of our armed forces, I'm not sure how much difference our missiles will make considering the massive amount of ordnance dropped by our allies.

Couldn't we be doing something more productive, or see this irrefutable evidence that we're in the right, or at the very least have a little more debate about it? The ten hours were no doubt useful, but I can't help wondering how many MPs actually changed their mind during the debate. Honestly, I'd imagine the minds of the majority came out the same they went in.

It wasn't my intention to write about such an obvious topic this week.

Still, best laid plans and all that.