David Cameron does hold a majority in the House of Commons, albeit a slender majority. If the Conservative party voted as one the vote would be won. In other words Cameron has failed to convince some of his own MPs that his 'plan' for Syria is real and will work.
The SNP hold a swathe of seats in the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats have a handful of seats and UKIP, the Green Party, plus political parties from Northern Ireland and Wales all have some representation.
Labour occupy the biggest number of opposition seats making them the official opposition but if there is a free vote on airstrikes in Syria they are just one cog of the wheel.
In votes on military strikes politicians are often given a free vote enabling them to follow their conscience. The main political parties on both sides of the House could apply the 'whip' meaning MPs will have to vote according to the party line.
While some leading lights in Labour are said to be furious that Corbyn wrote to his MPs so swiftly Thursday at least one politician in that party is feeding the media.
Who is the real traitor to Labour?
Jeremy Corbyn is known for his anti-war stance but this writer has no doubt that he would step up to the mark if the U.K. was under direct threat or military action would achieve a good outcome.
Who can blame him for questioning the number of 70,000 Free Syrian Army personnel that Cameron claims are on the ground in Syria, and working together; people Cameron claims will work on the ground as allied forces bomb the country into near oblivion.
Syria is a complex civil war made worse by numerous terror groups operating in and around Syria. Some of those we want to support are called 'moderate rebels' but that is debatable.
When is a rebel a rebel, when is a rebel a terrorists and when is a terrorist a rebel remains an unanswered question with one possible reply when The USA says so.
Yes we must oust the death cult Daesh but will the UK joining military strikes make a difference to the pit come?
It will show a unified western presence, it will put us all in the mix for any post-war pickings; it will make us all responsible for rebuilding post-war but as we all know there is money to be made out of conflict.
Mr Corbyn has been leader of the Labour Party since September 12 and has consistently made headlines for the wrong reasons. That has not been down to him but rather a series of stories, including one calling him Jihadi Jez, aimed at undermining his leadership.
Labour is an aside in this story but sadly our media are making it the main issue.
Mr Corbyn's letter to Labour MPs follows:
David Cameron has said he will hold a vote in the Commons next week but only if he is sure of a win. Anything less will, he claims, send out the wrong signal to others abroad.
What we do know is that the men, Cardiff-born Reyaad Khan, 21, and Ruhul Amin, from Aberdeen, reportedly planned attacks against and in the UK; plans for those attacks were uncovered by a Sky News undercover investigation.
Toward the end of their report on August 11 the Sky News investigator says "It's impossible to know if any of this is true, of course. But we suspect much of it is."
Does that sound a good enough reason to kill two British men in a country, Syria, which the UK is not at war with?
It comes after ex-top brass last night urged the PM to set a date for action.
War is a dirty business but there are rules of engagement. The Geneva Convention and Human Rights Acts around the world offer guidance and some protection; should we discard these rules so easily when it suits?
If we do we set dangerous precedents that can easily back fire.
Part of the problem is the alleged attacks planned against the UK were all scheduled for events that happened on or before the two men were killed-non took place.
Legal eagles in the UK have already said that our laws do not allow for retrospective action against possible attacks.
So many times when Cameron cannot act at will he tries to change or reform legislation. This time however it will not be easy. BBC News reports;
The "act of self defence" was lawful, despite MPs previously ruling out UK military action in Syria, the PM said.
Did others die in the 'precision airstrike'? Were any civilians caught up in the madness?
According to Forces online no civilians were killed and both men died in the same vehicle.
"The Prime Minister insisted that the strike was "entirely lawful" and was approved by Attorney General Jeremy Wright."
Attorney general Dominic Grieve was replaced by Jeremy Wright QC July 15, 2014. Wright has said the killing of Khan and Amin broke no rules but many people describe him as inexperienced and a 'yes' man.
One man that does have the necessary experience is Lord Dannatt who google describes as "a retired British Army officer and the incumbent Constable of the Tower of London. He was commissioned into the Green Howards in 1971, and his first tour of duty was in Belfast as a platoon commander."
Dannatt has previously worked for or with David Cameron as a defence adviser but he quit that role in 2010 when Cameron became UK PM.
And Lord Dannatt's conclusion is the "Strike On British IS Fighters "May Well Not Be Right"."
"I'm accepting that the British parliament has not authorised action from the air over Syria at the present time.
"Another British national, Junaid Hussain, 21 and from Birmingham, was killed in a separate air strike by US forces in Raqqa on August 24."
Note: Rupert Murdoch is the man behind Sky News and The Sun publication-"THE Sun today lays out the military options open to David Cameron for air strikes on Syria to ease the migrant crisis, was Sunday's headline. What a way to sell newspapers and war!
The UK would not hesitate to launch more secret drone strikes in Syria to thwart potential terror plots, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said reports BBC News-that presumably means illegal or not.
Today - David Cameron faces scrutiny over drone strikes against Britons in Syria
David Cameron knew RAF personnel were on bombing raids in Syria-July 2015
Cameron commits UK on US TV to war against Islamic State-also July 2015
British Prime Minister David Cameron loses vote on Syria action-August 2013
In Libya the murder of Gaddafi and removal of his regime has not brought widespread peace. Instead it has resulted in open borders allowing terrorists to travel freely and spread their venom elsewhere.
Will bombing 'targets' in Syria help resolve the situation? Is it a step in the right direction or regressive?
If we look back even further the USA had a poor track record in Afghanistan. It was so keen to strike ate Russia, the Soviet Union of the day, that it actively supported the Mujahedeen in that country; a band of rebels that morphed into the Taliban.
Having fought two long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq what has been achieved in real terms except for removing leaders and regimes we once supported?
Attacks against IS targets in Iraq are one thing; that country agreed to that move.
But if we simply begin a bombing campaign in Syria without approval from the country's leader President Assad we lose all credibility.
The west tends to twist and turn the rules to suit claiming special circumstances but we set dangerous precedents.
It is obvious Ms Harman is being invited to Tuesday's meeting ahead of a potential vote on air strikes in Syria or a government decision to do just that.
In 2013 UK PM David Cameron lost a crucial vote on air strikes in Syria. 30 Tory rebels voted with Labour whilst another 31 Conservatives failed to vote. At the eleventh hour Labour leader Ed Miliband pulled the plug on strikes against Syria and it was a popular decision.
Over in the USA President Obama President Obama committed to Syria strikes bit Congress was left with the final say.
The Middle East peace envoy at that time, former UK PM Tony Blair, did not agree. A year later Blair's view was 'Don’t rule out boots on ground in Syria.'
But there was no stomach for another war, either a piecemeal affair or full-scale.
Since then we have viewed harrowing images, read terrible news and in some cases experienced the horror of this new band of terrorists.
Is the time right to extend air-strikes and can they achieve a positive outcome?
Guardian June 2015 - Fallon's Commons speech on case for extending air strikes against Isis to Syria