SYRIA: A RISKY VENTURE

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, has hinted that hundreds of British soldiers could be sent to Syria to prevent a chemical threat to the West.

Mr Hammond has refused to rule out ordering troops to the war zone to rein in President Bashar al-Assad’s regime or seize stockpiles of illegal weapons.

He said it was ‘unlikely’ but no option was ‘off the table’ – in the most serious warning yet that the UK could deploy forces to Syria.

Mr Hammond gave his remarks after the outgoing head of the Armed Forces, General Sir David Richards, said Britain risked being dragged into the war.

Sir David, who has stepped down after three years as Chief of the Defence Staff, said ministers ‘would have to act’ if hoards of chemical weapons were discovered.

The UK must be prepared to ‘go to war’ if it wanted to stop the bloodshed inflicted by President Assad to crush a pro-freedom uprising in his country, he said.

At a ceremony at Horse Guards Parade in London to mark the end of General Richards’ tenure, the Defence Secretary said:

… I think it’s very unlikely we would see boots on the ground but we must never take any options off the table.

… It’s not our job to decide how and when and if to deploy forces but to make sure the Prime Minister and the National Security Council have the maximum range of options open to them.

General Richards revealed planning for a major operation led by Special Forces was under way. He said:

… The risk of terrorism is becoming more dominant in our vision for what we do in Syria.

… If that risk develops, we would almost certainly have to act … and we are ready to do so. Some could characterise that as war.

OPINION

The Prime Minister should consider very carefully the words of the outgoing Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, before promising to give military assistance to rebel forces in Syria.

On leaving his post, Sir David has warned that plans under consideration to arm the rebels and set up a no-fly zone (NFZ) would be the start of a deeper and more dangerous British involvement. Stemming from that would invariably be aerial attacks on ground targets, followed by advisers to train the rebels, and, potentially, British combat troops on the ground.

Do we really know who these rebels are? Can we be confident that if they overthrow Assad, who has an advanced Air Force, they would govern any better? If Britain was to arm the rebels, could those weapons be used against British or other Western targets?

Syria has evolved into a pernicious bloody civil war with complex sectarian dimensions the West barely understands.