WHEN I first came to Westminster, MPs were brought back in August after the horror of the Omagh bombing, at the close of the Irish troubles.

More recently, Parliament has been recalled after the 2011 riots, at the height of the Syria crisis last summer and even so tributes could be paid after the death of Lady Thatcher.

So why, as Britain inches towards military involvement against scary Islamic militants in northern Iraq – and comes under pressure to do far more – are MPs still farflung and mostly silent?

There has been growing pressure for a recall, from both Conservatives and Labour sides, from MPs who believe this is a dangerous moment when ministers must be held to account.

After all, at the weekend, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon admitted Britain was being dragged into a combat role in the conflict, saying: “This is not simply a humanitarian mission.”

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister himself raised the spectre of terror attacks “on the streets of Britain”, unless the Islamic State, known as IS, is stopped.

And even Pope Francis appeared to endorse the use of force against the jihadists, arguing it is “legitimate to stop the unjust aggressor”.

Now David Cameron has been forced to abandon his Cornish holiday for emergency talks about the horror beheading of an American journalist – by a Briton, it appears.

And yet – even as it ponders sending soldiers to train the Iraqi army to fight the Isis insurgency – the Government continues to insist there is no need for MPs to give their views.

Even a blast from Richard Dannatt, the former head of the Army, who dismissed the attempts to shut down debate on Government options as “dangerous and glib”, made no difference.

The Prime Minister has been able to dismiss calls for a recall because he has ruled out British troops joining the Americans in air strikes on IS.

Instead, he limited Britain’s involvement to airlifting Yazidi refugees from Mount Sinjar and transporting weapons to Kurdish forces, with the training role now under consideration.

At first sight, the contrast with Mr Cameron’s boldness on Syria – when he wanted Britain to launch strikes, after Assad’s regime used chemical weapons in a Damascus suburb – appears bizarre.

After all, it should be much easier to win support for military action against jihadists, to protect the Kurds, than to wage war in Syria, where Britain would be allied with Sunni rebels?

I suspect Mr Cameron is itching to get stuck in against IS, as a ‘liberal interventionist’ who argued passionately for the military campaign which overthrew Gaddafi in Libya.

However, that would require a Commons recall and a vote – a highly risky move, in a hung parliament, following last year’s damaging defeat on action in Syria. It appears the dark shadow of the Iraq disaster of more than a decade ago is still determining British policy. Going back into Iraq poses dilemmas for all the parties – although the gathering crisis may yet trump them.