In March 2011 I wrote a post asking where the national interest was in intervening in the Libya uprising.
Have we really learned nothing from the vanity and hubris of Blair, putting service personnel in harms way, the same personnel the government is making redundant, so politicians can puff out their chests and bask in a bit of uniform love?
As trouble continues in Libya and no doubt some of the weapons that were so freely supplied to the Libyan rebels will find there way into the hands of those wishing us harm I am still struggling to see where the UK’s national interest in Libya was, the kind of long term strategic interests that the National Security Council is supposed to have a grasp of.
In a spot of synchronised commenting this weekend, David Cameron and General David Richards have both talked up the prospects of limited intervention in Syria and arming the rebels.
Seems rather ironic that the British Government cannot afford to equip its own armed forces can do so for someone else.
Taking sides in a brutal civil war, a civil war whose fault lines run very deep, does not seem to be in the UK’s national interest to me.
Even though I asked the question about Libya I could still see the issue of uncontrolled economic migration and petrochemicals as something to consider but with Syria, am just having difficulty seeing the upside of intervention.
This lack of national interest has been wisely noted and not a great deal done but why the change in mood music now?
There is noting wrong with compassion for the innocent but as strong as this should rightly be, it should not cloud our judgement. As usual, the average person involved is nothing at all to do with the Jihadist lunatic fringe but there are so many deep seated tribal alliances, ancient hatreds and permutations and combinations of local politics, religion and ethnicity that stepping in on one side or the other seems doomed to create a set of unintended consequences that might run counter to our interests.
Jordan, Turkey and Israel are more than capable of containing the situation and any acts of overspill or deliberate provocation. Widening the conflict, however much the rebel forces would like to, is not in their interests so despite the odd containment action they are also adopting a watching brief and keeping a low profile.
As the country collapses and moves towards some sort of ethnic partitions, a set of ever more gruesome atrocities inter ‘everything’ infighting would a wiser move be to offer limited military support to our allies in the region (not that they need it), maintain some political distance from the tainted participants and concentrate on providing humanitarian aid to the innocent displaced.
In all the talk from David Cameron I have still to see him talking about how we would benefit from intervention beyond the naive and indulgent ‘its for the children’ defence.
We seem to be sinking into the defensive ‘threats to our interests’ mentality in the Middle East rather than thinking long term about what we want from the region. This might be a wholly selfish attitude and not entirely compatible with decent humanitarian values but we need to be harder nosed in our Foreign Policy because to be blunt, we don’t have the cash to waste.
Come on Dave, what’s in it for the UK
UPDATE:
Sven has a go at answering the question
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/syria-where-is-natioanl-interest.html
I agree that intervening in Syria has little merit at the moment, but less confident than you that Israel and Jordan can contain the disorder, or that Turkey would necessarily choose to do so in ways that sustain our interests; as the arc of instability on our Mediterranean and Balkan borders grows, we need to be both watchful and engaged…this is the war we need to prepare for if we are to keep the peace.
I would be really curious to see what sort of shape an all or primarily European intervention would take. It would not be an easy operation by any means unless Turkey was heavily involved.
I turned my reply into a blog post.
The answer is remarkably simple in my opinion.
@Jeremy MH: that would be the rub. Turkey. What sort of Syria do they want, because they are going to be the guys who decide, not us.
Reasons for a Syrian intervention that actually make sense:-
- NATO obligations to Turkey
- Assad’s repeated support of terrorists that have attacked British citizens and interests
- To neutralise Hezbollah
WF,
NATO obligations to Turkey only apply if they have been attacked, beyond the nuisance attacks and possible provocations from the rebels wanting to suck them (and us) in
There are others that support terrorism and I don’t think he is in any position to be launching terrorist attacks at anyone
Hezbollah, come on, Iran is being bled dry supporting them so the smart move is not to neutralise Hezbollah but let our real threat, the Iranians, carry on jogging
Just don’t see any proper strategic reasons for anything but the most limited intervention
@TD
The whole Turkey issue has settled down a bit post the F4 shoot down and initial shelling incidents.
Turkey has told NATO that it will reply unilaterally against positions used to strike Turkish territory and has indeed been doing so.
Turkey is also taking advantage of the confusion to take care of some of its “Kurdish” issues along the border.
Limited intervention by arming the rebels is a possibility but beyond that the situation is so confused that actually planning any form of military intervention would be extremely difficult.
However given Syria’s position adjacent to Turkey and its alliance with Iran. It has no less national interest or strategic reasoning than “regime change” in Iraq which had the added benefit of taking away the buffer on Iran’s border. Or the meat grinder in Afghanistan.
@TD: “NATO obligations to Turkey only apply if they have been attacked”. Well, yes. I listed it here for completeness’s sake
“There are others that support terrorism”. Not to the same degree. And if he wins, you can bet he’ll get worse.
“Hezbollah, come on, Iran is being bled dry supporting them “. Bled dry might be a bit of an exaggeration. Hezbollah sit on the Med and have a proven track record in worldwide terrorism. Seizing the opportunity to get rid of them at low cost by removing their patron and supply line is the sensible thing to do, with long term benefits.
I’m not in favour of sending anything other than money and perhaps SF: we don’t have anything else as the US won’t get involved. But the more we stick to sitting on the sidelines, the more the tune will be called by those who don’t necessarily want the type of Syria we would like to see, or even accept as “good enough”
Neither Jordan, Israel or Turkey are doing anything major, they are the ones most impacted by what happens so why should we do anything more than the locals, all of whom are more than capable than what we would bring to the party (more or less)
What happens in Syria will happen, regardless of what we do
I wonder why Dave has changed his tune over the weekend
‘I wonder why Dave has changed his tune over the weekend’
I don’t think it’s anything more than political timing to start the ball rolling.
WE must remember that the PM is briefed at levels we do not see. He is acting on the full picture and we must also factor in Iran.
He could have intel that will change our position and is laying the Political groundwork.
We do know the PM is briefed on things we don’t know about. It doesn’t mean the man in the street can’t question. It doesn’t mean the man in the street is wrong about an issue. Every conflict in an increasingly small world has knock on effects. We can’t do everything. If the world is that dangerous we need to intervene in every situation I would suggest we need to start expanding our forces rather rapidly. If Turkey’s with 400,000 soldiers isn’t too worried I can’t see what difference a few thousand British squaddies, a dozen FJ, and a frigate will make.
X,
Chill out, I was only offering a possible answer to why the party line seems to have changed.
It’s good that Cameron talks tough on Syria. We want to hear words from the PM that chime with the UAE and Saudi positions; the Middle East is still buying arms and we have stuff to sell, let’s keep our markets happy.
I can’t really see the British military having an active and overt role though, beyond possibly providing UN observers or in assisting the delivery of aid to the region.
Was there not a incident of Israel / Syrian engagement in the golan region over the weekend. This would not be a gd development if your trying to get Arab collective engagement to solve the syrian issue. So the harder line maybe for Israels benefit look we are taking this serious. I would agree with apas that this is linked to Iran as well. But while we need to ensure what’s happening in Syria stay in Syria the is no uk interest I can see of going into Syria.
I have to agree with TD on this one. It’s difficult to see any UK centric angle for intervening. There is little oil in Syria so no direct economic impact as we saw with Egypt and Libya.
The region is a s**t hole with little strategic implication’s. No matter who emerges as the victor they are likely to be un-friendly to us. Also factor in the Russian angle and there are more than enough danger signs for us not to get involved.
Given that we make up less than 1% of the world’s population maybe it’s time to let the other 99% do something instead of pleading for our help then criticising us when the first bomb drop’s.
I would imagine any change in call me Dave’s thinking is far more to do with the US election last week than any magic piece of intel (remember that magic intel from 2003) so maybe the US is getting prepared to do something.
I would however say that if the current regime looks to use WMD’s or it looks like loosing control of it’s WMD’s then we should act possibly using SF and air strikes but it should be an in out operation not some form of nation building.
TD
Am completely with you on this one.
As you say, “There is nothing wrong with compassion for the innocent” and there is a place for humanitarian intervention in certain circumstances. That tradition goes right back to the 19th century, the days of Disraeli and Gladstone. I was very much behind Western intervention in the Balkans, for instance, to stop terrible suffering and genocide and that has been, to a certain extent anyway, successful.
However, we have a much smaller Army now and as x says, “We can’t do everything. If the world is that dangerous we need to intervene in every situation, I would suggest we need to start expanding our forces rather rapidly.”
I also suspect, as you do, TD, ulterior political motives here. Your statement: “Seems rather ironic that the British Government cannot afford to equip its own armed forces can do so for someone else.”
Seems to me interesting that the USA seems to be very much standing back from this one.
@ APATS
Sorry. I was completely chilled. I wasn’t talking to you more a general rant about bandwagon jumping, poor government, the PM’s generally piss poor performance, etc. etc.
I can see one possible reason.
To counterbalance the degree of influence the Jihadists are having on the people of Syria when they fight alongside them.
The whole situation there is a big mess, and it’s more of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t kind of thing.
Damned if you do:
While media have been focusing on the plight of the “common man” and the “barbarity of the government”, let us not forget that at the bottom line it is a rebellion against a government, and supporting them is aiding in the overthrow of a recognised (though non-democratic) government with a seat in the UN. That opens a really big can of worms in the question, “where do you draw the line?” In fact, when the whole mess started, many governments even officially supported Syria, at least until the “disproportionate response” problem cropped up. And in that case, what would constitute grounds for intervention in the future? Tear gas on riots? Rubber bullets? Death penalty? In essence, foreign intervention is taking away the country’s “right” to police it’s own people for yourself.
This isn’t even including the free for all furball mentioned above that the troops are going to find themselves in, with the possibility that BOTH factions might react badly to “Western Invasion” and turn the whole mess into a 2 v 1 against intervention forces.
Damned if you don’t:
Jihadist groups are already reported to be involved in the fighting on the rebel’s side. Unless the rebels lose and are wiped out (which I actually don’t see happening), they will remember the people who helped them in their “time of need”, which will give great influence on any future rebel government. Maybe not to the extent of open terrorist camps, but more of a willful blindness and disinclination to actively supress them. Supplying them arms helps diffuse this problem a bit, but there is a massive difference between giving someone a gun and fighting alongside him.
The crystal ball:
My read on the whole situation is that fighting will go on and on and on until both sides get worn out and a peace settlement is reached with a general amnesty. Possibility 2 is that the government runs out of money to pay mercenaries and suddenly collapse one fine payday.
Intervention in Syria doesn’t present any obvious benefit to us at the moment, except for making ourselves feel good about ‘helping’ the rebels which is often questionable in these complex situations.
Any military involvement beyond simple aid would have to be NATO led anyway, what in all honesty could the UK hope to achieve on it’s own?
I think for the present we should remain vigilant of what’s happening on our Mediterranean and Middle Eastern flanks but not get involved in a deep rooted civil war which ultimately isn’t any threat to our wider interests and we would probably only complicate further.
I would not limit how we intervene based on perceived easiness, so if a prolonged ground intervention is required then fair enough.
You can’t solve political problems in Damascus by lobbing missiles from submarines or dropping laser guided bombs from jets.
But
There has to be a reason to do so.
Therefore, our response must be based not on the ways and means available to us, but ends
There is no value in intervention. It isn’t worth the material costs. And it most certainly isn’t worth the lives of British service personnel.
I find it quite funny people think we could intervene in any way beyond shipping containers filled with guns, ammo and cash…
Our independent deployment capability couldn’t defend its own perimeter and no one else is interested in deploying logistical cover for our larger force, which is tied up in ghanners for two more years anyway.
But sadly, the fco is ran by emotional children.
Expect to see a humiliating climb down when Cameron is summoned by the Israeli and Turkish ambassadors, who in no uncertain terms inform him they can and will stop us if we interfere, violently if required.
Either could seize Cyprus in an afternoon
“Expect to see a humiliating climb down when Cameron is summoned by the Israeli and Turkish ambassadors, who in no uncertain terms inform him they can and will stop us if we interfere, violently if required.”
If they were kind. If they are not, they’ll let you get sucked into the bog and snicker behind your back.
There seems to be an assumption that the UK is the only nation that has contingency plans in place.
I guarantee you that the US has plans to intervene in place at all levels from arming rebels, through targeted strikes, no fly zones to a ground invasion. It is the job of military planners to have these in place for when they may be required. Not to say “egh well we will just go and work something out”.
Each plan will have a variety of conditions to that must be in place for them to be viable. Some will be military and some Political.
The Political ones will include support of neighbouring countries. Contingency planning and discussions will be occurring at NAC (North Atlantic Council) meetings in which Turkey is fully involved and Israel will be kept in the loop Diplomatically.
P;S.
Ambassadors do not summon leaders of states (well not twice anyway).
@APATS
True on plans. And I hope they STAY contingency plans. What can justify getting tangled in that snakepit must be very monsterous. Or stupid.
There is a possible way to stop the bloodletting, but unfotunately, it’s a situation that will please nobody.
Diplomatic asylem for Assad.
Observer,
Indeed here is hoping that they stay contingent.
I believe we and others have muted Assad going into exile.
What are the French doing seeing it is their former parish?
(x goes of to read Le Monde…….)
Could this be part of a broader move by Cameron as part of increased tie’s with gulf nations.
It seems a little too much strategic thinking for the current government however the Saudi’s and other gulf nations seem to be involved quite heavily. Helping to support their efforts could make sense if it helps us leverage more out of them especially in Typhoon sale’s etc.
However even if it is I think our contribution should stop at training, cash and light weapon’s.
Also should we be concerned about the role of Saudi Intelligence Service’s in this. If we look at Pakistan their intelligence service seems to be very heavily Islamicized helping to spread much of the discourse in South Asia. If we were ever to see the current Saudi regime toppled then having an active intelligence service with experience of toppling neighbouring governments could be a real problem.
Increased ties with the Gulf nations? Before we retreated back from East of Suez the Gulf/Arabia was one of Britain’s primary security concerns. The Americans only moved in en masse to fill the vacuum left by us. Commercially we never really left. I can’t see how Dave could increase ties any more.
I had a talk not so long ago at my university and there seems to be a rumour that the CIA are more on the side of Assad over the rebels due to the extremist involvement and influence on the rebel side, large culture divide that is hard to control and not knowing what a future ‘free’ Syrian government would do with their WMDs.
Very interesting but overall getting involved could cause more problems as Iran would no doubt support foreign fighters in the region and it would look like ‘another’ crusade on the Arab world… But the interest lies in making a stable governing power to stop any instability from spilling over the region. This should be done with the local regional powers such as Turkey and Jordan and excluding Israel (similar to the reasons of the Gulf War). But that is just my opinion and what do I know? Probably nothing…
In all, I think we managed about three years of “not being East of Suez”. The presence in the Gulf went in 1971, the final pull-out from Malta and Singapore was 1977, the Armilla patrol deployed in 1980. You can sort-of argue that Armilla was only temporary and not that big a commitment, but of course the Falklands went off in 1982 and the cat was out of the bag about being “out of area”. And the RN has never been not east of Suez ever since the beginning of Armilla.
@ Alex
There is a big difference between a frigate paddling around the Gulf and the amount of forces we had traditionally in the area. The US weren’t best pleased when we gave up the Gulf policing role.
@Martin is quite right to point out that we only represent 1% of the worlds population, but we are amongst the astonishingly rich part of that population that constitute the G20, who enjoy a standard of living that the other 95% of countries can only dream of. In our case that great wealth and the very comfortable carry on that it provides us with is only sustained by a world wide network of financial and trading activities that secure the resources that guarantee our comfort. If we want to maintain our current standard of living we must engage with issues like Syria, and also maintain the means to intervene alongside others if required. Furthermore, all the evidence is that the underlying strategy of the USA is to achieve energy security at home in order to progressively withdraw from Europe, the Mediterranean and the Gulf and concentrate their efforts on contesting the Pacific with China. Romney might have delayed that process – Obama will almost certainly accelerate it.
That means that we will need to do much more heavy lifting than we have done for seventy years (long before we took the “peace dividend” at the end of the Cold War – back when we had conscription and an RN with independent global reach!); we will need to build serious military alliances with our big European neighbours, as well as actually rebuilding our own forces; and we need to look to our own energy security – nuclear, fracking, and FI oil as well as renewables.
The alternative will be to live within the very limited resources of our own small and densely populated islands…and we really don’t want that; worldwide free trade has secured us a much better situation than our home territories would allow, and we really need to think seriously about how we will defend it when the Yanks do go home; that is, by about 2025 at the latest.
GNB
The USN is assigning 4 extra Areligh Burkes to 6th Fleet over the next 3 years. Yes the US are changing priorities and the Pacific will be the focus of their Ops and especially big ticket assets but that has as much to do with their being no requirement for CBG and heavy Armour in Europe/Med anymore.
@ Gloomy Northern Boy
I think you mean the G7 not the G20 which actually contains money of the world’s poorest people i.e India, China.
The UK is actually one of the most self sufficient G7 nations. 100% food sufficiency is possible for the UK if we go back to dense agriculture and we produce more of our own oil and gas than any other G7 member except Canada.
“If we want to maintain our current standard of living we must engage with issues like Syria,”
I might agree if we were talking about Libya but Syria does not have anything worth the blood shed and going back to my previous point issue’s like Syria are issue’s for the broader international community. We make up less than 1% of the world’s population but some in power in the UK seem to have appointed us the world’s police man every ready to charge off and fight other people’s war’s. I just don’t see the point or the benefit for the UK.
I seriously doubt we will see a retreat of the USA and if this did happen then I do believe we would have to increase our military capability. However as we only make up 1% of the world’s population I am not sure how much difference we can make. America seems to have taken then view that it is prepared to bankrupt itself to provide the likes of Japan and Germany with security but I don’t think it’s the right option for the UK.
Marit,
Not sure why we concentrate on % of population. It is far more to do with GDP, we have never been short of manpower in Uk for military needs since the 1940s and when a couple of FAE armed bombers can render a 3rd world division combat incapable in ten minutes it is not about population size.
It is about reliance upon good order throughout the world and free flow of trade etc that allows us as a country of 60 million to be one of the richest in the world.
This does not mean i am in favour of intervening in Syria but cutting you nose off to spite our face in other situations is not a very clever plan.
@ APATS
Agreed that GDP is a better indication of strength. My point on the population is,why do all the worlds problems have to be our problems? Its only because our leader’s make them our problems.
Its this dangerous mindset that see’s us stretched to breaking point across the world with an ever increasing foreign aid budget.
I agree that we benefit from a well ordered world especially freedom of the sea. however constant interventions on land post 1991 have seen us butcher our naval capability giving us less ability to maintain that freedom of the sea that we require so much.
One could also argue that its in all nations interest’s to maintain order and freedom of the sea which brings me back to my previous point why does it always have to be us?
No one will thank us if we topel the current Syrian regime. So why get involved?
If we turned of the TV would we even know something was happening in somewhere like Syria?
@ Martin – I do mean the G20; our position there is pretty much secure, whereas our position in the G7 is not; and I am talking about the “top” 5% of the 200+ Countries in the UN, not about population size – not least because both India and China have a rich urban population which is to all intents and purpose a part of the developed world, but which is sitting on top of a poor rural population which is not; furthermore, the rich urban element represents no more than 1 in 5 or 6 of the whole – making absolute population size much less relevant.
Possibly we could feed ourselves on peas, beans and lentils in the long term, but our fuel security is strictly short term unless we do a great deal more to secure it – and peas, beans and lentils disagree with me!
I can see no reason to believe that the USA will not withdraw to their own “near abroad” and the Pacific – they have clearly said they intend to – and in Obama they have re-elected the first of many Pacific-facing non-WASP Presidents with no Atlanticist pre-disposition at all; hopefully those who follow him will not dislike us as much as he does, but they will certainly not feel the same instinctive connexion that all his predecessors since FDR did; the current reinforcement of the 6th Fleet is tactical, not strategic.
With that caveat where I disagree with him, I otherwise refer to m’learned friend @All Politicians are the Same; we need to stay in the game lest our grandchildren face a pretty crappy existence in a miserable and impoverished offshore island with lousy weather, and the trick is to keep up our GDP by maintaining good order alongside others – after, if necessary, doing a little more than they do in the first instance in order to get the ball rolling…
@Martin
Agree absolutely with the comments about being “stretched to breaking point across the world with an ever increasing foreign aid budget” and how we have “butcher(ed) our naval capability, giving us less ability to maintain that freedom of the sea that we require so much”
Also agree with your point about how “no one will thank us if we topple the current Syrian regime. So why get involved?”
However, your last point “If we turned off the TV would we even know something was happening in somewhere like Syria?” smacks somewhat of sand and heads being firmly stuck in it. We encountered just a few minor problems in the late Thirties when many British were calmly munching their toast and marmalade and reading their Sunday newspapers, blithely ignorant of events in Austria, the Sudetenland, the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia. It wasn’t until Poland came along that we belatedly became fully aware of the awful truth and moved away from a policy of appeasement. Surely it is our job to know (i.e. not switch the TV off).
Syria is billed as a fight between a wicked dictator & freedom loving democrats. This ignores Assads referendum to improve limited democracy in Syria. Why did the West denounce it, rather than applaud it as a first step to reform?
Is Syrias real crime, its support for Shia Iran? The US, Israel & the West are reluctant to attack Iran directly, so perhaps want to weaken Iran by destableizing its ally?
Does Cameron realise he will be unemployed in 2015 & is now trying to curry favour with rich Sunni Gulf states? Doing a Blair perhaps?
How does handing Syria to Al-Qaeda help the West?
“David Cameron and General David Richards have both talked up the prospects of limited intervention in Syria and arming the rebels.” – Perhaps it will come out of our ring-fenced foreign aid budget? If the “rebels” get into power, and prove every bit as repressive as the current regime, so that in five years or so another set of “rebels” rises up to challenge the new regime, do we then arm the new rebels, and so on?
“He could have intel that will change our position” – Oh hell, not another dossier!
Re intervening in Syria. Let’s not.
France is now to recognize the rebels in Syria. Do they know who or what they are supporting?
People living in another, proud historic culture, (Another third world toilet). Decide they have had enough of their, Brave, independent,strong man,(Murdering torturing bastard) and revolt. natural everyone is agreed as to who they are against, but not on what they are for. So democrats Jihadists and tribal types all end up in one ‘resistance’. Big time shooting, big time massacring torturing etc becomes a game everyone can play.
Why do we want to go and stick our noses in? whats in it for us? And just WTF could we do about it anyway…? At this rate we could have deployed our mighty deployable brigade in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, etc etc.
I really get tired with the ‘We ignored hitler and look what happened’ argument. It is deployed as an argument for every intervention against 2 bit hardarse and his cronies.
@John: Recognizing isn’t about sympathy or allying. It’s (supposed to be) about respecting sovereignty of the people. You are supposed to recognize as government whom you consider representative of the people.
Even the French government does not necessarily follow a proxy strategy here.
Instead, Paris appears to be very sensible to the need to be on good footing with the Arab populations rather than with the governments. They had a rude wake-up call in Tunisia and are implementing the lesson.
I think the national interest is easy to see, we benefit from peace and stability in the region (and everywhere else really).
To me the question is how much are we willing to put into the kitty on the matter.
My instinct is, not much. Some diplomatic noise, probably a lot of noise, and perhaps a token blue beanie force of observers if it stops.
If trouble spills over into Turkey on any scale then its a different ball game. Some might argue that intervention should be made to pre-empt that but I’d rather play that one by ear. Even if it does happen Turkey is more than capable of defending itself and I therefore see only a token contribution of enablers like AAR in an almost non-combatant role and only to displace Syrian trouble makers.
We’ll make a lot of noise but little more than that. If it starts to spread we’ll have drama’s but it won’t just be us having them.
So to summarise: containment, diplomatic thunder, perhaps a token blue beanie or enabling force for VERY limited combat operations in support of Turkey if Article 5 somehow needs to be invoked.
To all those demanding action to stop the slaughter our Government should provide the Afghan Black bag issue and an assault rifle and a plane ticket to Syria. To those that go over unarmed anyway because they have the courage of their convictions more power to them, better folk than me.
“Syria is billed as a fight between a wicked dictator & freedom loving democrats. This ignores Assads referendum to improve limited democracy in Syria. Why did the West denounce it, rather than applaud it as a first step to reform?
Is Syrias real crime, its support for Shia Iran?”
Syria’s “crime” is using lethal military force (including heavy weapons) on it’s own citizens , during a period when the western broadcast media has convinced itself that the “Arab Spring” is a good and apparently unquestionable thing. Once Assad started using lethal force on the scale he did, there was only going to be one outcome in the western media prism, given 24 hour news.
That the Alawite sect is supported by Iran is as irrelevant as the “freedom fighters” being supported by those fine upstanding Sunni gentlemen from Saudi and UAE.
Can you seriously imagine a western polly standing up and saying “we don’t like Assad, but frankly some of the nutcases on eth otehr side make him preferable”? No, me neither. Realpolitik was never really palatable, but it did have some basis in reality. “Emo-politik” (copyright NaB 2012) is just f8cking daft.
If Assad is a monster for lethal military force, why no Western denouncement of the same in Bahrain? Or the ongoing shelling of a town in Libya, killing many innocent civilians, beacause the “good guy” new government thinks a few Gaddafi crones might have hid themselves there.
Because the 24hr news cycle has moved on from Bahrain (which has the 5th fleet base – realpolitik again)and Libya, so there is no need for the pollys to take a position.
I’m not suggesting one is good t’other bad. They’re all a bunch of @rseholes that have current global importance for the simple reason that for this brief couple of hundred years, tops, the world economy runs on “cheap” oil. Otherwise, we could give them all a stiff ignoring and let them argue over which camel to sh@g till the cows come home…..
What if Putin thinks his naval base in Syria is under threat? What will he do? Another good reason for the UK to stay out of Syria.
The UK should slightly beef up our forces on our crown bases in Cyprus, in case of overspill, but otherwise do nothing.
If we want to help Syria, then invite Syrian teenage boys to a scout jamboree on the crown bases in Cyprus, to keep them safe & out of the fighting, until the civil war is over. A good use for DfID money for once. Those lads would have clean hands when they went home & could thus be national leaders/great & good in 20-30 years time.
or just switch of the TV and spend that DFID money on something useful at home like energy research so we can stop dealing with corrupt middle eastern regimes.