Whataboutery has become one of the most useful, effective, and regularly deployed weapons in the Corbynite arsenal.

It doesn’t really matter whether it makes any sense, or is consistent with what is being discussed; whataboutery is a method of distraction that allows the Labour leader’s supporters a way of avoiding difficult questions and cognitive dissonance.

So, whenever Jeremy Corbyn’s past dealings with Hugo Chavez, the IRA, or Bashar al-Assad are mentioned, Corbyn supporters will wheel out pictures of, say, Tony Blair meeting Muammar Gaddafi. See? Your favourite politician meets bad people too. Job done.

Of course, there is a massive difference between a Prime Minister meeting a foreign leader he fundamentally disagrees with in order to persuade them to drop their chemical weapons programme, and a backbencher showing solidarity with tyrants he is supportive of, but this is to miss the point of whataboutery. Details don’t matter. Shutting down or shifting the debate is what’s important; positing false equivalences and wriggling off the hook is the purpose.

A very common example of Corbynite whataboutery is to point to the ongoing crisis in Yemen. When cornered by criticisms and trapped by logic, left-wing journalists and Corbyn supporters reach for the Saudi intervention in Yemen as a shield, as inescapable proof of how they are morally right and everyone else is tainted.

It’s easy to see why they do this. Britain and the U.S. are currently selling arms to Saudi Arabia, who are using these weapons in the Yemeni civil war. And Yemenis are suffering as a result. 10,000 have died since the war began in 2015, half of them being civilians. Another 40,000 have been wounded. The country is plagued by disease and famine. And Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights is horrific; it uses the death penalty more than almost every other country, free speech is persecuted, and women and minorities are discriminated against. The Saudi regime is unquestionably grotesque.

So it feels like an easy decision. Stop selling arms to an abhorrent regime for use against a suffering population. Feels straightforward.

But as with so many other issues, the Corbyn left identifies real problems, but then puts forward solutions which could well make matters worse. There is a complete lack of consideration for potential consequences, which is what happens when you sit on the sidelines and argue against things you know won’t change; it’s a lot harder to be in a position where your choices will have impacts and you must own the outcomes.

It is bad that we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. I don’t like it at all. But is stopping doing so a cost-free decision?

Suppose we were to stop trading arms with Saudi Arabia tomorrow. What might happen? At the moment, Britain’s support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen involves both training pilots to minimise civilian casualties, and attempts to influence the Saudis in a more humanitarian direction. Suppose instead Saudi Arabia sourced their weapons from a state which had no interest in pushing the regime in this way. Should we regard this as a better situation than we are in now? Could a Saudi regime which felt isolated become more aggressive? What happens if Saudi Arabia have no incentive to keep the West on side?

Further, the government that the Saudi-led coalition is defending in Yemen is internationally recognised and action in support of it is mandated by U.N. Resolution 2216. Houthi rebels, with tacit support from Iran, have seized large parts of Yemen, including the capital Sana’a, as part of an attempted coup. The Yemeni ambassador wrote to MPs specifically requesting that Britain continues to support the coalition. Should we ignore the U.N. resolution and the direct request from a government under siege, not just from Houthis but also from al-Qaeda?

John Woodcock sums it all up neatly.

Showing your disapproval by removing the influence that can bring about change may give you a momentary buzz of self-satisfaction but is irresponsible and wrong. In this case it could well have the unintended consequence of making the deaths of Yemeni civilians even more frequent.

If your goal is to act in the way that will result in the least harm, these are questions that at the very least merit serious consideration. If your position is morally correct, but ends up leading to worse outcomes and more suffering, is it still morally correct? Sometimes every choice is a bad one. Sometimes the option that appears the most moral may have the most deleterious consequences.

Banning weapons sales to Saudi definitely feels the right thing to do. I believe there is a very strong argument for it. But I also think that the implications of doing so need to form part of our thinking. Viewing this as a uniquely moral cause where the West is entirely to blame, rather than as Britain being one actor of many, trying to find the best, workable, solution, is a fundamental misread.