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
The Hunting Act and Human Rights Act are both under threat.
The actual election of a new Labour leader is some way off but is expected to include Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Mary Creagh and Liz Kendall. Those running for the job of Labour deputy could include Tom Watson, Caroline Flint and Gloria de Piero.
News that more ordinary people will be able to be part of the Labour elder election is a mixed bag.
Labour have announced those able to vote will be;
1) Labour Party members (Join here)
2) Affiliated supporters — people who’ve signed up as a Labour Party supporter through one of our affiliated organisations or unions (Become an affiliated supporter here)
3) Registered supporters — people who’ve registered that they support the Labour Party by signing up online and paying a one-off minimum fee of £3 (Become a registered supporter here)
The above represents a radical change in how the next Labour leader will be elected but is the process too open? This Labour member wonders if it could be open to political abuse.
News that Labour are now supporting an in /out EU referendum seems a good tactical move as it may be to appeal to a more voters but it could also call a Tory bluff.
Labour does not have enough parliamentary seats to oppose a referendum; the Tories pre-election promise of an EU referendum could be one of those be-careful-what-you-wish-for moments.
If it was a vague manifesto promise expected to fall flat at the first hurdle that will not be the case. If the Tories hoped Labour opposition would delay the referendum they are out of luck.
Parliament will vote on approving the referendum and as Ms Harman has said if approved as expected it should be held at an appropriate time not close to other important elections.
It will of course be held at a financial cost to the British taxpayer; but apart from the cost of holding a referendum there will be the cost of an in or out vote to consider.
This coming week, on Wednesday May 27, the state opening of parliament will take place and Queen Elizabeth II will deliver the new government's plans in the Queen's speech.
Tory Business Secretary Sajid Javid speaking earlier on the Marr show seems confident that David Cameron will be able to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU. He said "the government was "not pretending it was going to be easy" to get the changes required."
One of those changes is limiting tax credits to foreign workers in the UK but as Harman said increasing low-pay would make a difference.
But will Social Security entitlements such as tax credits and benefits survive the Tory government?
Check back Wednesday for Queen's speech details
Pro-European politicians in the UK will be hoping they can persuade the electorate to vote to stay in the EU but as the 2015 General Election proved voters are fickle. Will the referendum be a straight forward in / out card or will it be worded with an edge?