Should The USA/UK Interfere In Syria?

Many of the current headlines indicate that both the American President and our Prime Minister are building up to military intervention in Syria in an attempt to stop the use of chemical weapons. An extremely laudable idea, but is it wise? The Syrian crisis has caused the death of thousands of Syrian people since it began, and there have been suspicions that chemical weapons have been used on several occasions and each side is blaming the other. It is without doubt a serious situation and the end of the conflict is nowhere in sight.

Syria Gas Attacks

Syria Gas Attacks

It is perhaps time that an outside force moved in to stop the violence, but the USA and the UK again? I am sure that would not go down well with other Arab countries especially after the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. These two invasions caused much hatred of the USA and the UK in the Arab world, which resulted in bomb attacks in New York, London and Madrid. Admittedly the intervention in Afghanistan was UN sponsored, but still caused resentment from the people because the bulk of the forces were either American or British.

It Is The Rebels Who Are Using Chemical Weapons.

It Is The Rebels Who Are Using Chemical Weapons.

Syria is most assuredly a difficult problem, for American and British intervention would be significant in stopping the needless bloodshed of the Syrian people and save thousands of lives, but must be weighed against the resentment created from other nations.  Iran in particular has warned against such action by saying publicly that ‘the US should not to cross the “red line” on Syria’, adding that such an action, ‘would have “severe consequences”, What those consequences are is anyone’s guess, for unless it resorts to terrorist practices it cannot really strike at the USA.

The Silent Arab Union States

The Silent Arab Union States

What I do find rather mystifying is the silence of the Arab Union states on the question of Syria. Occasionally one or other politician comes out with a half-hearted request for Assad to stop fighting and negotiate a peace deal, but other than that they have remained relatively silent. I would have expected more concrete action from this Arab version of the UN, like embargo’s and real pressure on both sides in Syria to stop fighting, and more importantly, killing innocent civilians. Sadly, they seem a pale reminder of the real UN which has become nothing more than a talking shop these days.

It remains to be seen if the UN will finally take positive action to stop the slaughter in Syria, but after two years, I for one am not hopeful. In political language, the strongest condemnation of the Assad regime has come from President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron this last week, who were quoted as saying, “they were “gravely concerned” about the situation. This is two steps up from ‘concerned’, which is followed by ‘seriously concerned’ in political speak and which indicates they are very unhappy.

 Ayman al-Zawahri - Current al Quada Leader

Ayman al-Zawahri – Current al Quada Leader

We can be fairly certain that if an American/British force take any part in the Syria conflict it will not go down well with the terrorist groups who are looking for any excuse to have another go at us. The al Quada leaders, and every radical Muslim cleric will use it as an excuse to whip up more hatred of the West, and is sure to encourage more young Muslims to enlist as suicide bombers or become fighters. We could see a new wave of bombing attacks, much like London, Madrid and Boston on the cards, and for what, perhaps solving a problem that should be sorted out by the other Arab nations.

Syrian Rebels

Syrian Rebels

Apart from the occasional mild verbal exchange, countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain etc. have done nothing, even though this conflict is happening on their doorstep so to speak, and is a fellow Arab country. They have all steadfastly distance themselves from the entire scenario. Other Arab countries like Iraq and Egypt are not in a position to give an opinion on the Syria conflict for they have internal problems of their own, and interesting to note that other Arab countries are staying out of those problems too. Its like they don’t want to take any responsibility for actions taken to stop these conflicts, but are happy to sit on the side-lines and let the West handle them, and I might add, get all the criticism.

Chemical Gas Attack Victims

Chemical Gas Attack Victims

The only Arab country to so far voice any strong opinions is Iran. This should come as no surprise to anyone for they will use any excuse to have a go at the West, especially America. Another factor is that they are most certainly supplying arms to Syria so do not want to ‘upset the apple cart’ and hit their profits. Another advantage for them is that it is successfully diverting world attention away from their own nuclear ambitions. Notice that there has been practically no mention of Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the world press for months now as everyone concentrates on getting the most they can out of the Syria story!

The UN - All Teeth But No Bite!

The UN – All Teeth But No Bite!

It would seem to me that the only way the world can put a stop to this situation is for the Untied Nations to start acting in the way first intended by its founder, Winston Churchill. At least half the world’s nations should contribute to a UN Force that will go in and separate the two sides and negotiate a peace deal. It should not be left up to America and Britain to supply the greatest bulk of the forces as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nations should be strongly represented by at least a thousand men and associated equipment, although smaller countries would provide something proportionate to their size and available military forces. There are at least 189 independent countries in the world (estimates vary) which means, discounting the very small ones, something in the region of perhaps 150,000 man UN Force could be assembled, which would be more than enough to control Syria. It is quite possible that even the threat of such a move would be sufficient to stop the fighting. Strong UN intervention would not only stop the civil war, but also, if it is proven that Assad actually used chemical weapons then he and his generals could be brought before a UN court to face justice. Naturally, if it was in fact the rebels then they would face justice.

The Russian Fleet Harbour In Syria

The Russian Fleet Harbour In Syria

Naturally, none of this will ever happen for several reasons. Instead of being a force for peace and justice in the world as was originally envisaged, The UN has become nothing more than a toothless tiger, a talking shop where politicians the world over can debate for endless hours without taking any decisions, and do not need to take action on anything. Another reason is the veto exercised by both Russia and China to protect their own investments and trade with the Assad regime. Russia fears it will lose not only billions of dollars worth of trade and arms sales to Syria, but also its only naval base outside the Black Sea. China on the other hand also has a multi-billion trade deal with the Assad regime.

Ethiopian Soldiers Fighting In Korea

Ethiopian Soldiers Fighting In Korea

I can already hear the comments of some bright person who will say that to assemble an international force on the scale laid out above will be nigh on impossible because of the logistics involved. So are we saying that our grandfathers were more capable than we are today, given what they had to work with at the time? The same thing happened with the Korean War in which 22 nations took part, even tiny Luxemburg. That was the only time when the UN acted as it is supposed to do and it stopped the whole of the Korean peninsular becoming like the North is today. Given our much increased logistic capabilities today why can we not make it happen? There are sufficient assembly areas in neighbouring countries like Jordan and Turkey and a two pronged attack is a good way to go if the two sides do not lay down their arms. The forces stay until peace has been established and an interim government is installed, and then leave.

It sounds simple and I know it is not, but this is the only way for the UN to resolve disputes when war breaks out and ensure that the nations on Earth can live in peace with each other.

There can be little doubt that if America and Britain, even with the help of the French, were to ‘invade’ Syria the repercussions could be significant, and drive yet another wedge between the Muslims and Western countries.

Roy.

News Flash:-

Its amazing how just a few short hours can change things. Since I posted this article the US and Britain, along with France have stated that they are planning military action against the Assad regime within the next two weeks according to The Independent. The action will most likely be restricted to missile strikes from the US Carrier Force stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean on strategic government targets in Syria.

William Hague - Britain's Foreign Minister

William Hague – Britain’s Foreign Minister

The British Foreign Minister, William Hague, has said, “We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity and there are no consequences,” Another  Downing Street source said: “We intend to show that an attack of this nature will not pass without a serious response.”

American Carrier Fleet

American Carrier Fleet

At this time it is anticipated that all strikes will be with missiles and no ground troops or aircraft will be employed. Although the action will come from the American Naval Fleet, both Britain and France stand together with America politically in this action. Should the strike actually take place, we can all expect a reaction from Iran which can range from threats to subversive action, and there is a likely possibility of terrorist reprisal.

This step has been taken because of the four day delay by Syrian government forces in allowing the UN Inspection Team on the ground to visit and assess the area of the latest outrage. The three leaders are convinced this delay was to allow Assad forces time to remove incriminating evidence.

Roy.

2 Responses to “Should The USA/UK Interfere In Syria?”

  1. Alfie Says:

    The answer to the question that is the post title is NO!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: