Commentary: Even intervention lite risks a quagmire for Britain

 
Robert Fox18 June 2013
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

David Cameron has been warned he may be entering a diplomatic and military quagmire as he urges bolder action to support Syria’s insurgency.

First there is the question of the legitimacy and practicality of the actions he is proposing.

Short of being empowered by a full UN mandate, which seems unlikely as both Russia and China seem ready to play their vetos, any British action would have to conform to two sets of international conventions ­— those governing humanitarian intervention, and the Responsibility to Protect, adopted by the UN in 2005.

The use of military might, in whatever form, should offer the reasonable prospect of making things better and not worse. Much of this framework has been created in the light of what went wrong with the intervention in Iraq, and to an extent Afghanistan.

In both cases the outside force brought to bear was not particularly appropriate or proportional. In fact the US defence secretary at the time, Donald Rumsfeld, boasted about “shock and awe”.

And even if the Prime Minister intends to go for military intervention lite, with special forces as trainers, no-fly zones and the like, he will be expected to help rebuild Syria.

Assuming his team can find the right bunch of moderate, secular, western-facing insurgents to give to arms to, it is unlikely that things are going to get better in the country for quite a time.

It is set fair to stoke up an arms race between Syria, Russia, Iran and the Hezbollah militia on one side and a cat’s cradle of interests behind the rebels, including the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the al Qaeda affiliate al Nusra Front.

The nasty sectarian flavour of this contest on the ground is now unmistakable. It pitches Sunni against Shiite, with the Druze, Alawites, Christians Orthodox and Catholic caught in a cultural and political no-man’s land.

Arming the rebels implies a belief by Mr Cameron that the fate of Syria can be decided by victory on the battlefield. Again we have echoes of what the West thought could be done in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The British government has been told that preparing the insurgents to defeat the Assad regime militarily will take three years at a minimum.

First the best elements of the Free Syrian Army would have to be taken away from Syria to be trained up as a disciplined force. This would take a minimum of a year.

The defeat of Assad’s forces would then take a further two years at least. By then it is debatable whether any single power would be able to control, run and rebuild Syria. This, too, for Britain is a tall order, particularly as Mr Cameron has been cutting our armed forces so hard that they are now facing serious recruiting difficulties. Time to think again.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in