Syria: MPs recalled for possible intervention vote DAVID Cameron has recalled MPs from their summer break to debate the Syrian crisis amid signals that the UK is preparing to join allies in military intervention against president Assad's regime. Yesterday, Downing Street confirmed that defence chiefs are drawing up contingency plans for military action in Syria following a chemical gas attack believed to have been carried out by president Assad's troops. Last night, the Prime Minister said the chemical attack was "morally indefensible" and said he could not "stand idly by" in the face of the "massive use" of the banned weapons. Mr Cameron, who cut short his holiday in Cornwall, said there would be a "clear government motion and vote" on the issue at Westminster tomorrow. He spent yesterday meeting with Cabinet colleagues and talking to international leaders in a bid to come up with a "legal and proportionate" plan, which would also act as a deterrent. Meanwhile, US defence secretary Chuck Hagel said his country was "ready to go" in its response to the atrocity, raising the possibility of air strikes being launched within days. Mr Hagel told the BBC it was "clearer and clearer" that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack in a Damascus suburb that killed at least 355 people last week. "We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," he said. We are working with the United Nations, our partners are working with the United Nations. There are a different range of options and the United States department of defence is ready to carry out those options. Former prime minister Tony Blair, now a Middle East special envoy, who ordered British troops into Iraq and Afghanistan, said the West had to stop its "hand-wringing" and act. A failure to intervene would leave Syria "mired in carnage" as a more dangerous breeding ground for extremism than Afghanistan in the 1990s, he said. In interviews yesterday, Mr Cameron said tomorrow's debate would ensure "proper" scrutiny of the escalating crisis. "Obviously, this is a developing situation, as I say, decisions have not been taken, but we shouldn't stand by when we see this massive use of chemical weapons and appalling levels of suffering," he said. Parliament is the right place to set out all of the arguments, all of the questions. But I would say this to people - there is never 100 per cent certainty, there is never one piece or several pieces of intelligence that give you absolute certainty. But what we know is this regime has huge stocks of chemical weapons. We know they have used them on at least ten occasions prior to this last wide scale use. We know they have both the motive and the opportunity, whereas the opposition does not have those things and the opposition's chance of having used chemical weapons in our view is vanishingly small. The Syrian regime has denied "utterly and completely" that it was behind the chemical attack and has warned that military action would be a violation of international law. UN weapons inspectors yesterday delayed a planned visit to the suburb where the chemical attack took place until safety concerns had been addressed. Meanwhile, diplomatic pressure on Syria was stepped up when the Arab League joined Western nations in blaming president Assad's regime for deploying chemical weapons. After an emergency meeting, the group - which represents 22 nations in the Middle East and Africa - called on members of the UN Security Council to overcome their differences and agree on "deterrent" measures against those who committed "this heinous crime." Later, president Francois Hollande said France stood "ready to punish" Syria if the chemical attack could be linked directly to the Assad regime. Turkey, which shares a border with Syria, said that it would take part in an international coalition against president Assad if the UN failed to agree on a punishment. Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said: "This is a crime against humanity and a crime against humanity should not go unanswered, what needs to be done must be done." Russian and China, both members of the UN Security Council, have made clear they will use their veto in a vote on military action. Yesterday they continued to make the case against intervention, insisting any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region. But the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, appealed for calm, saying that support from the UN Security Council for any action remained "extremely important." She also said that the priority was to "find a political solution" for Syria's bloodshed. Meanwhile, Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said he wanted to hear the government's case before his party would consider supporting military action in Syria. He said. When I saw the Prime Minister I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals. Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "Now there is to be a motion, the Prime Minister will have to make a convincing case if he is to persuade not only his own back-benchers but the House as well." The SNP said that it would need to see the wording of the motion to MPs and evidence of the attack before deciding whether to support military action. "Punishment strikes" will make things worse, say ex-generals Opting for a "punishment" missile strike against key Syrian military targets could serve only to inflame the volatile situation and one hit is unlikely to be enough, former military top brass have warned. Although the government has always ruled out "boots on the ground," former defence chiefs said Britain could end up being sucked unwillingly further into a conflict. General Sir David Richards, ex-chief of the defence staff, said: "The scale of involvement to make a decisive difference in Syria would be so huge that it is something that we at the moment cannot sensibly contemplate." Lord West of Spithead, a former first sea lord and security adviser under Gordon Brown, said: "I have a horrible feeling that one strike would quickly become more. The region is a powder keg. We simply can't predict which way military action will go and whether it would draw us, unwillingly, further into a conflict. Pushing ahead with any form of military action in Syria would prove to be a defining moment in David Cameron's premiership. The decision is not just politically fraught, but is also mired in legal and diplomatic pitfalls that could have ramifications for years to come. Long before he held the reins of power, Mr Cameron gave an insight into his approach to international action. Just months after winning the Tory leadership he insisted "you've got to do what you think is right even if it's unpopular" and praised former prime minister Tony Blair for making "some great steps" in foreign affairs. Mr Blair has backed action warning of the "consequences of wringing our hands instead of putting them to work." But the former premier's decision to lead the UK into the Iraq war has cast a long shadow over British foreign affairs that has left many deeply reluctant to intervene in conflicts overseas. Eddie Barnes: Legality of strike is in question WILLIAM Hague has been clear this week that action could be taken legally without full UN Security Council backing. This has been disputed by Russia's foreign minister Sergi Lavrov who compared the idea of military intervention in Syria yesterday to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - also backed without a UN mandate. Any strikes would, he said, be a "crude violation of international law." President Barack Obama has already openly noted the legal complexities if the UN Security Council does not give its approval. However, his administration is understood to have been studying the 1999 strikes against Serbia for precedent when - as could be the case this time - Russia's objections to bombing meant that Nato strikes were backed without a UN mandate. The use of chemical weapons in Syria may provide more legal cover. Geoffrey Robertson, QC, a former UN appeal judge, insisted last night that, with evidence of the regime's guilt for the chemical attack, strikes on specific sites in Syria would be legal.