So today I was watching yet another debate on Syria. One that I found interesting it was a group of analysts on BBC and I saw a similar debate on CBC with some military personnel and such.
Basically they said that Syria is likely to fall apart and enter a civil war that could last as long as twenty years without foreign intervention. They estimated hundreds of thousands may die and that Assad can't possibly remain in power and the war would end with him out of the picture.
When that was said the question came about that foreign intervention would likely save lives. But the analysts came to the conclusion that an entry into Syria would be another Iraq at least or Afghanistan at worst. They said put Nato troops on the ground you'll likely save a lot of lives, but you'll be in the mess for at least 5-10 years.
Its not a simple task armed intervention in Syria is necessary to save lives, but if Nato were to enter Syria it would not be able to leave for a very long time.
On the CBC a military person stated that in Libya we were able to provide air support to a rebel army capable of defeating Gaddafe. The rebels had territory they had troops and they had the capability to end the war. Nato was also easily able to secure the air space and they knew they wouldn't likely need ground troops.
The difference here is that the rebels in Syria don't control any territory in which Nato could defend with air strikes. If an air war were started Nato would be firing blind hitting every piece of armor in Syria, raining hell on Government targets but unable to to help the rebels. Boots on the ground would be almost a necessity but 40% or so of the population according to the debate are in support of the regime. Ground troops would face fierce resistance and would be fighting for years to establish a new Government.
In the end the question is, do we allow Syria to drop into a 20 year civil war killing hundreds of thousands to millions of people. Or does somebody intervene and save hundreds of thousands of lives but get stuck in the country for up to ten years? Obviously the sanctions aren't going to stop the violence and China, Russia won't likely allow any further sanctions. So should someone intervene or just let Syria implode and watch as hundreds of thousands die?
(p.s- think outside the box, Nato isn't the only force capable of intervening. Should someone intervene to who's advantage would it be to intervene or is it not worth it to intervene at all , anyone let alone Nato.
-JC7
"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer
