Modern Studies Assignment
Topic- Syria
Question- Should we intervene in the Syrian civil war?
Hypothesis- Intervening in Syria would only cause more harm than good.
Aims- Find out the pro’s and cons of the UK involving itself in Syrian matters. * Find out the negative effects involving ourselves would cause. http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/10-good-reasons-uk-should-not-take-military-action-in-syria/ * We have no common cause with either side in the conflict. We do obviously not want to support Assad’s murderous regime backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah but more importantly we do not want to assist rebels some of which have with links to Al-Qaeda who want to create a militant Islamist state. This is not a simple case of ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’ and there are also sectarian issues we don’t even fully understand. We cannot even be sure the chemical attack was carried out by the regime – it could be a desperate ploy by rebels to produce exactly this response. * Whatever level of action we take, whether it’s firing off a few Tomahawk missiles or sending in troops it will result in further civilian deaths. Although we may aim at ‘military’ targets there is always ‘collateral damage’ in fact the regime may even force civilians into military installations as ‘human shields’. Will the long-suffering people of Syria welcome yet more ordnance raining down on their country, however carefully targeted? * The most obvious lessons from the tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we should not get involved in a war without a planned exit strategy and a realistic hope of post conflict nation-building that serves both the people of Syria and long-term regional stability – a very tall order. * We will not be thanked. Our motives for involvement maybe honourable – to protect the civilian population and end the conflict but the Arab world and probably most Syrians won’t see it that way. To them it will be another Western invader melding in their affairs and seeking to gain more influence and power in the region. We will probably emerge even more hated and despised – further western interference in the Middle East is also another recruiting cry for terrorists. * We may trigger a much wider conflict. After the “Arab Spring” of 2011, the Middle East is already very unstable. Like all cynical Arab leaders under pressure, Syria is threatening to attack Israel in the event of western intervention. How far the conflict would then spread beyond the borders of Syria is hard to say. * We are broke and over-stretched. We face a large national deficit and another military intervention, even if it proves to be as ‘simple’ as Libya will cost £ Billions we cannot afford. After lengthy engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq our forces need time to recuperate and restructure. (Laughably the 2010 defence review promised “no new conflicts before 2015″. Rather like reducing your house insurance on the basis you don’t plan to be burgled in the next 5 years). Further fanning the flames of conflict in the Middle East is also likely to push up oil prices further impeding the economic recovery. * It is not in our national strategic interest1wfghg. Apart from the humanitarian concern and desire to stop the war, there is no direct benefit to getting involved. To be pragmatic, in Iraq part of the reason we were involved was to safeguard oil supplies. In Afghanistan we were supposedly confronting terrorists who threatened the UK. In Syria we may even end up assisting those with similar ideology to those same terrorist groups. * Syria is a properly armed nation. Syria is not like Libya or Afghanistan. Although it has virtually no navy, the country is well defended with modern weaponry, up-to-date air defences, mobile missile batteries, a large army with heavy armour and of course, a large stockpile of chemical weapons. Going to war with such a nation should not be done lightly. * We risk serious conflict with Russia. Stuck in his ‘Cold War’ mentality, President Putin sees Syria as a ‘client state’ and key to their influence in the region. They maintain a small naval base at Tartus and want to keep Assad in power. The Russians are the main obstacle to diplomatic progress at the UN and don’t care about the sufferings of the Syrian people so long as they keep their foothold. They will not be happy with Western intervention and have a significant naval presence in the Mediterranean. Whether Russian forces would actually fire on Western forces is not something we want to put to the test. * Defence cuts mean any UK military contribution would be ‘token’ rather than decisive.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/should-britain-attack-syria-yes-2234763
Yes - Mike Gapes MP * There have never been easy or risk free options in Syria * Even before the horrific gassing of thousands in opposition held districts of Damascus there were one hundred thousand dead, four million driven from their homes, one million refugees in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan and people fleeing to Israeli hospitals. * The UN should have invoked the “Responsibility to Protect” two years ago with humanitarian corridors and No Fly Zones to protect civilians from attack by the Baathist regime but US reluctance and Russian and Chinese support for Assad in the Security Council made this impossible. * NATO, European Union and Arab countries must now establish a coalition of the willing to intervene to secure, remove or destroy the chemical weapons to deter future use in Syria or elsewhere and to prevent them getting into the hands of either Assad’s terrorist ally Hezbollah or opposition Al Qaida linked Jihadist elements. * This does not mean British or Western boots on the ground. Nor should we take sides in a complicated civil war by providing sophisticated lethal weaponry to elements of the divided Jihadist linked Syrian opposition. * But there must be a robust international response to the use of internationally banned chemical weapons and the threat of their proliferation throughout the region. * Mike Gapes is the Labour MP for Ilford South and a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
No - Adam Holloway MP * There cannot be a sane person in Britain who would not think it a good thing for us to get involved in the war in Syria if by doing so it would ease the horrors faced by the Syrian people – and dire risks to people in neighbouring countries. * We must be guided not by our alliance to America, but by our duty to understand that military force should only be used in support of a clear purpose and with a clear objective in mind - in support of our national interest. * I am yet to be convinced that there is a strong and clear-cut case that military action will deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons – nor am I convinced that in 20 years’ time some other tyrant thinking of using chemical weapons will turn around and say to his or herself ‘Whoops, better not do that: remember what Obama, Cameron and Hollande did back in the summer of 2013’. * The use of chemical weapons was indeed a crime against all of humanity. * But by firing one missile we are involving ourselves in a civil war on the side of a fractured opposition which includes people with proud link to Al Qaeda. * By striking now, without clear cause and purpose, we risk consequences that we have not even thought of: this is a case of hit – and then hope. * The House of Commons voted for to send our troops to unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have done nothing to make our country safer. Don’t let your MP make a similar mistake today. * Adam Holloway is the Conservative MP for Gravesham and a former officer in the Grenadier Guards.