In my humble opinion, this is one to stay out and keep out, for a starter we do not have the resources either in equipment or manpower. The options for intervention really are only by air, but if Turkey will not allow their airfields to be used and the same with Greece including Cyprus (Akrotiri) and Jordan, what next?

SLCMs, shortest route across Israel, not a hope, without causing an awful lot of problems all round, same goes for aircraft, in fact the ISADF would look upon this as a 'target rich environment'.

Both sides are going to indulge in slaughter on both sides, with their mutual supporters from Iran Russia and the Gulf States providing all the resources they need.

Would we want to be in an area where the reported release of CBRN has happened and if true may happen again. Remember mask in 9.

Syria has a coastline and the next shortest route is across Lebanon which wouldn't be capable of interfering.

Yes very narrow, and as Lebanon is a Hezboullah stronghold allied to Iran who want Assad to survive, that could cause trouble and even provide MANPADS. If you have SLCMs coasting in over Syrian/Lebenon coastline the ISDAF are going to get very twitchy about their eventual destination, in particular if you are targeting CBRN facilities. As you are well aware SLCMs are only really usable against fixed targets and with no real time data from assets such as E8 Sentinal E3D etc you have a problem, the U2 may provide this data but if permission to use Akrotiri is withdrawn then where do you deploy from?

With the continued draw down of US forces and reduction in combat readiness, could the USAF deploy forces in a short period of time in particular tanker ISAR C4int and strike capacity.

Without in any way implying we should get involved, which I definitely don't....

We have both E-3D and Sentinel R1/ASTOR which would allow targeting. We should also have enough Typhoon to defend them, at least long enough to get data then retrograde. Who do you imagine can withdraw permission for the RAF to operate out of Akrotiri?

Our military options.
Firstly we shouldn't.
But if the poison gas outrage is such that our political masters nudge us into involvement there is a way.
People talk about a no fly zone. Enforced with CAPs and SEAD.
But there is another way. Simply take out their (already depleted) air assets on the ground.
We (with our allies) have the intelligence assets to know where all their helicopters and fighter jets are. Then at 3AM one morning we could use stand off weapons and drones to neutralise them all.
Then we are seen to do something and we create a more level playing field on the ground. With no lives risked.
In a similar fashion we could degrade what is left of their armour. And then maybe selected strikes against the government C4ISTAR.
Then let the various opposing forces fight it out on the ground.

What is very pertinent recently is that the rebels have been putting a lot of effort to fight the Kurds in the north instead of fighting the government. Ethnic cleansing. They want a Sunni caliphate and everything else must be removed. In conquered territory they are enforcing strict sharia, which is a big shock to citizens used to a secular regime.

You are making many assumptions that we can forward deploy those assets without political cover from the UN, and the Russians and China will at present will veto any action in the Security Council. Also we do not have the assets to cover a 24 hour week long surveillance system. We lack tankers, C4INT and the number of Typhoons required to provide force protection. On the point of tankers we only have one VC 10 left, a few Voyagers, no strategic reconnaissance in the form of Airseeeker/Nimrod and Tristars/C 17s are required for the airbridge to Afghanistan.

Another one we don't need to be sticking our nose in, end game if we do is we leave a bunch in charge that will end up hating us..

Ideally a nice carrier full of fixed wing assets of the coast is what's needed.... ohh hang on, we got rid of that :(

Yep. We could be seen to be prolonging a war and creating even greater bloodshed - a fight to the end, with small arms, grenades and heavy calibre weapons, with lots of lives risked (only not our own)!!

The "West" have simply backed the wrong side on this, as we did in Egypt, in Libya and, arguably, in Iraq.

Eclectic

Are you William Hague's advisor?

Incorrect, sir. If you create a "more level playing field" you will see a longer and bloodier civil war.

Nut LooseBut we didn't. However, I don't agree with that no fly zone, interfere approach that I saw posted above. Beyond Russia and China blocking it at UNSC, it too would create too much relief for too many factions who we don't want to see win.

Another point I'd like to make:
"Majority Rule" (mostly Shi'ite) in Iraq has seen a serious and sustained level of non majority (mostly Sunni) civil strife and violence.
Majority rule in Syria (Sunni in this case) would likely see something similar from the minorities, and also a larger refugee flow than is currently being seen.

Anybody of reasonable intelligence who has spent a year or two in in any Middle Eastern country will have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have any kind of democratic rule in such places.I was told 'If you dont have your foot on his neck he will have his foot on yours' is the local philosophy. Acceptance of majority rule is not part of Arabic culture. If we become involved in any military way in Syria our Foreign Secretary is even more stupid than I thought.Any regime that replaces the present one will be no different- only the names will change -see Egypt,Libya etc. It is not the politics,it is the culture which will take generations to change. LET THE BUGGERS GET ON WITH IT - IF THEY ARE KILLING EACH OTHER THEY ARE NOT BOTHERING US. Sell them all the arms they want then at least we have some benefit for our trouble. Cynical? No,practical.

I was beginning to wonder whether Eclectic was an FSA propagandist though :E

Ronald,

Alex Jones. Seriously? The guy is a raving loony. He should stick to pointing at the sky and ranting about chemtrails. :ugh:

My sentiments totally, leave them to it and see who survives at the end.

Roland P

You are spot-on. To be absolutely frank, it would not surprise me at all if the FSA are Hague's advisors!

For God's sake (whichever one you believe in), let's keep out of this worsening mess.

Best statement I've seen anywhere on what to do about Syria. :ok:

Totally agree with that.