Chances of UK intervention in Syria?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by duckieone, Jun 1, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Heard on the radio that Hague won't rule anything out. Obama won't do anything risky considering the election is so close. I have a feeling Dave will send the RAF to bomb the Syrians a little bit. Anything to distract press attention from what has been a pretty woeful 6 months of Government...

    Would it work? Do we have the capability? (please don't rant about carriers/harriers and the lack there of.)
     
  2. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.

    Not happening.
     
  3. Maybe in 2032 when we the bells and whistles CVF and super dooper F35B. Is that too late?
     
  4. Is that a we can't, we won't, or we shouldn't?
     
  5. All three.
     
  6. Can't - Because they actually have a pretty sophisticated anti air craft system in Syria. They're also a far more advanced military force than the Lybians were and it would cost a lot money to mount any meaningful operation not to mention supporting the humanitarian effort afterwards which I really doubt we can afford to do at the moment.

    Won't - Because it's not all that clear cut. A large peaceful percentage of the population supposedly support him and in Damascus the violence is hardly even apparent. They probably won't support any NATO intervention which, as far as they see it, will have to extend the violence to every part of the country to subdue or beat back Assad's security forces.That means it'd be spreading into the currently peaceful areas they live in. They might not care about the plight of their countrymen but so long as they're alright for now they'll no doubt want to keep it that way. Also, just to add to the difficulties, is the fact that Russia and China will fight against any decision to intervene. It could even further escalate tensions between us and Iran seeing as Iranian SF are now supposedly at work in Syria. Lord knows what would happen if we ended up killing some of them.

    Possibly shouldn't- Because there's no clear good outcome even if we help them remove Assad. The NTC aren't a unified enough front with a lot of minority groups within it who want a lot of different things and don't necessarily like each other. The one thing they can agree on is getting rid of Assad and not much else after that.

    It's a terrible situation but I don't really see what good an intervention would do right now if there's no clear cut positive end result and no reliable governmental force to put in Assad's place. And if we can't afford to help sustain the country once Assad's been taken out then what would be achieved? Another beleaguered Arab country falling about itself with various groups vying for power and nobody getting anywhere while Western countries have to pick up the pieces and pay the costs to prop everything up.

    As hellish as the events in Houla were over the weekend I don't see that our involvement would achieve anything other than a costly quick fix with no real end game in sight that could require our involvement for years to come....sounds horribly familiar doesn't it?

    Best bet is to wait for Assad's government to crumble (as it seems to be beginning to do) and then sweep in with the humanitarian effort like we were behind them all along....which is probably what we'll do. Heroic indeed.