Syria strike: Go-it-alone Trump did Britain a favour

Of course not. Mr Farron abhors almost everything Mr Trump says and stands for.

But when it comes to Syria, and the ghastly spectacle of Syrian children gasping for breath after a chemical weapons attack, Tim Farron has been on what we these days call a "journey" in the space of under four years.

He has changed his mind. And he has changed it in a manner which has left us seeing something remarkable. He is supporting Donald Trump – although he cannot bring himself to word it in that manner, and adds grudging qualifications.

As he made his decision to launch a punitive strike on President Assad, Donald Trump did British politicians, of all parties, a big favour. He did not ask Britain to join in.

The paradox is, for all the tut-tutting in some quarters about America acting alone, the fact that Donald Trump did not seek British military support has been greeted by palpable relief.

Following recent precedent, it would have led to a debate in Parliament exposing divisions in all parties and ending in a vote, the result of which would be uncertain.

Labour in particular has been let off the hook. For the party, a new parliamentary debate and vote would be as damaging as the last Syria vote in 2015 (extending British bombing of Islamic State into Syria). That had left Jeremy Corbyn at odds with many in his Parliamentary party, most famously with his own shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn.

This time round Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell do not back the US action, while deputy leader Tom Watson does.

While this is a shambles of a party position, individually they are models of consistency compared to Tim Farron, an unlikely cheerleader for military action in response to chemical attacks considering his past record.

In the aftermath of that rain of American cruise missiles on a Syrian air base, he declared: "Liberal Democrats will not condemn the action taken by Donald Trump, nor the intention behind it."

But just in case we get the wrong idea, he adds: "We disagree with the way in which he conducted it – unilaterally, without allies, outside of a wider strategy."

Which some might say is a bit rich, if you examine the flip-flop Farron strategy of the past few years when it comes to dealing with the use of chemical weapons by President Assad.

In August 2013, faced with almost identical circumstances, and international outrage in which American leadership was expected and called for, President Barack Obama wrestled with what to do.

He said a red line had been crossed. But he did not want to act unilaterally, without allies, outside of a wider strategy.

In the House of Commons, Tory leader David Cameron argued passionately for Britain to back US-led strikes against the Assad regime. The then Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg urged his own MPs to support the coalition government.

Tim Farron not only did not support his leader, he didn't vote at all.

Explaining his decision to abstain, he said at the time: "There should be no rush to take military action. We must instead continue to exhaust every possible diplomatic option.”

Tim got his way. President Obama, lacking broad international support, chose not to act alone.

There was indeed no rush to military action. Diplomatic options, such as they were, were exhausted. And as the bitter civil war dragged on, with the added complication of the involvement of Islamic State extending its tentacles across Syria and Iraq, Russia stepped in to fill the vacuum created by the lack a coherent Western policy.

Bolstered by direct military support from Russia, the Assad regime was emboldened to new depths.

And last week, there was this renewed horror, another gas attack, for which Assad is being blamed by the West and for which Russia is being held responsible through association.

Whether the missiles unleashed by President Trump in response caused much damage is not the point. The point is that he did not do nothing.

He could, as Mr Farron says, have sought multilateral action.

But is there any appetite among British MPs, let alone the country at large, for multilateral military action against Assad?

In 2013, MPs voted 285-272 to stay well clear of involvement, and reflected the stay-out mood of the country.

The House of Commons, said then Labour leader Ed Miliband, had spoken for the people of Britain. David Cameron had to find "other ways" to deal with Assad.

Like Tim Farron, a number of MPs who did not support military action back then are now saying they regret voting (or, in the case of Tim Farron, not voting) the way they did.

When minds can change so quickly over what are essentially the same facts, it is perhaps no wonder that the West, and Britain, have struggled over Syria.

And the chapter which in years to come outlines the history of the current age will reflect on the curious case of Donald Trump, an enigma in the White House.

Given his "America First" sloganising, bringing with it the spectre of an isolationist United States which might not even come to the aid of Nato members who haven't paid their whack, Assad may have been confident that he would get away with it again.

Just as during his election campaign nobody could be sure what Trump would say next, in office nobody can be sure what he will do next. While this worries allies, it does mean that no perpetrator of a war crime will be able to calculate with any confidence that Donald Trump's America will look the other way.

Within hours of expressing his disgust at the "gassing of beautiful little babies" he had done something which sent a measured message that he was not a do-nothing President.

In deciding to launch the missile attack, he is reported to have been influenced by the horrified reaction to the television coverage of his daughter.

The centre of gravity of much mainstream opinion is that the President of the United States is a joke, and a dangerous joke at that.

But, to adapt a line from Bob Monkhouse, nobody is laughing now.