It was a coherent speech, but the substance boiled down to: action, while not perfect, is better than inaction. Islamic fundamentalists are fascists, we are anti-fascist, therefore we must do something. This, I think, we can all agree on.
The problem is the efficacy of air strikes. For all the talk of 1930s parallels, a more apt one would be Vietnam where France, then US, had much more skin in the game and relied on air power in a doomed attempt to prove you could bomb a country to peace. You can't, by definition.
The honest truth is I'm not sure the best course of action. But to use another example in the news, bombing because we have a need to prove we are "doing something" is like fighting the mass shootings afflicting America by shooting the neighbours of the crazed gunmen. "Well, it's not very effective, but it's something" turns out to be worse than a flimsy argument, and actually would be exactly what we're trying to stop.
In closing, my right honorable friends, it is relatively easy to talk the talk, but just because action is needed doesn't mean this is the right walk to walk. Case not proven, imho.
I wish we we would approach terrorism as international crime rather than acts of war. Terrorists are criminal scum. Fight them as such, don't give them what they want which is the elevated status of being enemies powerful enough to change the course of history, which is what oratory like Hilary Benn's confers on them. That plays into their hands and makes us pawns in their game. Not a sensible thing for statesmen to do.
Just my two penneth.