Should we bomb Syria?

So, the big day is here. By tonight we'll know if we're bombing Syria. Ten hours of debate in Parliament obviously aren't expected to make a difference. The Prime Minister said he wouldn't even debate the issue if he didn't think he'd win. And he seems to know which way the vote is going. 

What gets me isn't the outcome per se (although I personally oppose it) but the process. Why can't we be honest about the whole thing? We don't need to bomb Syria - the Russians, French and Americans are already attacking IS and will continue to do so and probably succeed. No one can seriously believe that bombing Syria will protect our citizens at home. If anything, it will probably increase the risk of terrorist attacks. And I'm not convinced our leaders really care about civilians on the ground in IS-held territory, either. They don't concern themselves overmuch with oppressed civilians elsewhere, do they? Especially in Saudi Arabia. 

No. Our involvement is about one thing - a desperate, vain attempt to retain what little political influence we have in world affairs. To the victor, the spoils. We can't abide the thought that the Russians or French might end up with more influence than us in a post-IS world. That's what today's vote is about. The future. Our future. A future of more meddling in the Middle East (we've got such a good track record, haven't we?), more strategic and economic alliances with ruthless tyrants who are either enemies of our enemies or buyers of our weapons. Or both. 

Let's not delude ourselves. By tonight we'll know what we as a nation are about. 

If we weren't convinced already.