1. Who does he want to be in power in Syria? Does he know who he wants to win?
2. Does he think that the local forces he chooses to back are strong enough to win with the assistance of foreign airstrikes alone?
3. Does he think airstrikes will make people on the ground like us and want us or our allies to win? Will the accidental destruction of life and property that air strikes always bring help our enemies win the propaganda war?
4. Will there come a point where it is necessary to send ground troops in order to win? If so from where? From Iraq? If so is he planning to return to Iraq and fight our way from there? Does the UK have enough conventional ground forces and equipment in order to do this? Why is he spending so much on Trident and making soldiers redundant if well equipped ground forces are what is needed?
5. Does the UK have the determination to fight a long and costly foreign war which we know will involve heavy casualties on both sides?
6. What is the point of a partial involvement in a war? Doesn't that guarantee that you lose and the other side gains in strength?
7. What happened after the last time the UK got partially involved in a war? Are things better or worse in Libya after the dropping of so many bombs? Are there more refugees fleeing that country now or fewer?
8. Which local forces are we going to arm and support in Syria and how can we be confident that our local allies will use those weapons appropriately and ask us to bomb the right targets? Is our intelligence in Syria so much better than it was in Iraq when it thought it knew where the weapons of mass destruction were?
9. What is the moral justification for UK involvement in the war in Syria? Is it clear that this is self defence? Does he think it is right and proper to intervene in other countries that have evil regimes regardless of UN mandates?
10. If it is right for the UK to intervene why isn't it right for other countries? Are the Russians justified in increasing their involvement? Will the UK and the Russians be supplying arms to different sides so they can fight a new cold war on our behalf in Syria or are we going to come to an agreement with the Russians about the future of Syria?
11. What was the immediate threat to the UK that made it so urgent that he dropped bombs on Syria without Parliamentary approval?
12. Where exactly have the weapons come from that ISIS is using? Did our Saudi allies supply the cash? Did our Turkish allies allow weapons to cross their border? Are our Turkish allies bombing the Kurds that are fighting ISIS? How many of the weapons that the UK sent to Iraq have ended up in the hands of ISIS?
13. When will the bombing campaign end? What objectives will have been achieved when it ends?
None of these questions has a proper answer. It is bad enough that Cameron is taking Britain to war without a clear moral right to do so. It is even worse that he thinks he can simply ignore the ancient right of Parliament to vote the funds for that war. But what is really frightening is that he doesn't actually know what he wants to achieve, how he will achieve it or when it will be achieved.
If there is one thing we should have learned from Iraq it is that you need to think about the consequences when you go to war. A Prime Minister is meant to act with clarity of thought and purpose. We invaded Iraq without a serious plan about what would happen next. Look now at the result. We bombed Libya without a clear plan. Look now at the mess that is left. Is it really wise to drift into involvement in war in Syria?
The vast majority of us hate the ISIS regime every bit as much as David Cameron does. But going to war is a deadly serious business. I remain to be convinced that he knows what he is doing in Syria and that his actions will help anyone. Are you?