Action against Libya but not Syria?

jonniebgood1

Is there any reason other than oil that France, Italy, Britain, USA have engaged action against Libya but seem reluctant to take similar action in Syria (as 1 example)? Surely the need to protect Syrian citizens is as important as protecting Libyan citizens.

Raging_Ninja

1. Libya doesn't have much oil.

2. Syria is stronger (Libyan population ~6.4 million, Syrian population ~22.4 million). According to wiki, the Syrian military has 304,000 active personnel, 108,000 paramilitary personnel, and 300,000 reserves.

3. As it is, without the US doing the majority of heavy lifting the European players seem to be fairly hard-pressed to keep the Libya effort going.

Besides, better to fight one war at a time.

hmmm

If NATO wanted oil they'd have helped Gadaffi. You've been reading too much of the usual lazy analysis from leftie commentators.

Syria is on a different scale of military challenge and there is no clearly delineated front line that could be defended from the air.

There is nothing stopping the socialists of this world raising an army and going off to fight in Syria - why don't you go fight for Gadaffi?

jonniebgood1

hmmm wrote: »

If NATO wanted oil they'd have helped Gadaffi. You've been reading too much of the usual lazy analysis from leftie commentators.

Syria is on a different scale of military challenge and there is no clearly delineated front line that could be defended from the air.

There is nothing stopping the socialists of this world raising an army and going off to fight in Syria - why don't you go fight for Gadaffi?

I dont 'go fight for Gadaffi' as I am not a mercenary soldier.

There is no clear front line as you put it in Libya? Your theory is that they are willing to fight in Libya but not Syria because it would be more difficult in Syria?

Surely there is more in the detail than that.

jonniebgood1

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

1. Libya doesn't have much oil.
.

I thought they had???

Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Libya

dlofnep

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I thought they had???

I'd hazard a guess that he meant Syria. Syria's oil reserves pale in comparison to Libya.

There is a certain amount of hypocrisy with regards to intervening in Libya (which I feel was the right thing to do from a moral standpoint), and letting Syria get away with murder (literally).

Manic Moran

Just who do you suggest conducts a proposed military action in Syria? The only two countries which can are the US and Israel. Neither is likely to be overly appealing.

NTM

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just who do you suggest conducts a proposed military action in Syria? The only two countries which can are the US and Israel. Neither is likely to be overly appealing.

NTM

What do you mean 'can'? Up to a few months ago - not many would have anticipated intervention by France or Britain in Libya. Forces have been committed from a number of states - would the same not be applicable to Syria, and if not - why?

jonniebgood1

I wouldnt be in favour of such an action but I if forces intervene in Libya as moral protectors of the people there, then I don't understand why they dont do likewise in Syria. As dlofnep points out it could be expected the same countries as intervened in Libya would repeat their roles.

LondonIrish90

dlofnep wrote: »

What do you mean 'can'? Up to a few months ago - not many would have anticipated intervention by France or Britain in Libya. Forces have been committed from a number of states - would the same not be applicable to Syria, and if not - why?

Considering Britain is now tied up in Libya and Afghanistan, France in Libya, surely it is time for another able nation to step up to the plate and use its military for the good of humanity?

Should the UK and France (who have provided the bulk of the aircraft used in the offensive) have to police the world? They may not be involved in every conflict zone, but at least they are doing what they can with the resources at their disposal. Maybe its time for the Germans to stop tip toeing around with their considerable military might and put it to use for a good cause!

Local-womanizer

Where do you expect the UK or France to get the extra resources to invade a much larger and superior military country such as Syria when with the way things are they are barely able to sustain the current effort in Libya, which by modern conflict standards I would think is a small commitment.

dlofnep

Well for a start, I would like to see an arms embargo on Syria. Russia had plans to sell alot of equipment and fighter jets to Syria, that should be scrapped for the distant future at least. I'm not saying there should be an onus placed on one single nation, or two to liberate Syria - But that if the UN interjects in Libya on account of internal conflict, then surely Syria warrants the same.

Militarily, Syria doesn't come close to Britain or France. But that's not the point - such an operation would have to be undertaken by a number of different states, and not just one or two.

BlaasForRafa

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Maybe its time for the Germans to stop tip toeing around with their considerable military might and put it to use for a good cause!

How about the chinese take a stand against a dictatorship and police state?....oh wait.

Anyway, theres a few reasons why no action has been taken against Syria.

1. Theres no UN mandate to do so
2. Most of the available French and British resources are already tied up. And the usual suspects would be cribbing if the US took action on their own.
3. The Syrian government haven't started using ground-attack aircraft and heavy artillery against their people yet. An air campaign requires targets, theres not much point in sending in aircraft if they can't differentiate between the aggressors and the protestors.

LondonIrish90

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

How about the chinese take a stand against a dictatorship and police state?....oh wait.

Anyway, theres a few reasons why no action has been taken against Syria.

1. Theres no UN mandate to do so
2. Most of the available French and British resources are already tied up. And the usual suspects would be cribbing if the US took action on their own.
3. The Syrian government haven't started using ground-attack aircraft and heavy artillery against their people yet. An air campaign requires targets, theres not much point in sending in aircraft if they can't differentiate between the aggressors and the protestors.

There wasn't a UN mandate for Libya until NATO forces pushed for one either.

I'm not suggesting that western forces rock up in Syria tomorrow and begin a military intervention, but I believe if it does get to the stage where it is seen as necessary for such action to take place, it is quite wrong for pressure to be put on the UK and France to provide the military force for Syria as well, simply because they took the lead in Libya. There are many other western powers with the ability to lead such an intervention.

OS119

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is there any reason other than oil that France, Italy, Britain, USA have engaged action against Libya but seem reluctant to take similar action in Syria (as 1 example)? Surely the need to protect Syrian citizens is as important as protecting Libyan citizens.

there's a number of very obvious reasons.

1. Libya had a relatively fragile air defence network.

2. the method of repression lent itself to air attacks.

3. Gaddafi has no friends.

4. there were bases available from which to conduct attacks.

5. those bastians of liberal democracy, Russia and China, let it be known in advance that they would allow an UNSCR to pass.

6. Gaddafi has gone out of his way to make enemies in his 40-odd year career. many UN member states entirely indifferent to his treatment of his own population and not remotely interested in taking part in any military action saw this an an excellent opportunity to serve up some revenge.


Syria however is very different kettle of fish:

a) while its air defence network is not capable of keeping NATO strike packages out of its airspace, it is capable of causing losses, and of preventing the safe use of lower flying, lower speed aircraft like A-10, Harrier and Helicopters.

b) by and large, the Syrian repression is small groups of blokes in towns and city centres opening fire with AK-47's. if you drop a 500lb bomb on them, you're going to hurt the people they're shooting at.

c) Syria make not have friends per se, but it has 'partners'.

d) there are no politically realistic bases to operate from - Israel is out, Jordan and Iraq would face internal difficulties, Turkey isn't wildly keen on 'liberal interventionism' for obvious reasons, and Lebanon is scared stiff of Syria. Cyprus is a possibilty, buy only from RAF Akroteri.

e) Russia and China, not keen on the precedent, have let it be known in advance that they will veto any UNSCR on Syria.

f) while Syria may be loathed by many of its neighbours for its past actions, it does occassionally make itself useful to others.

conclusion? Libya was done because it could be done successfully at relatively low cost and no one found Gaddafi useful. Syria will not be done because it would be physically difficult, militarily expensive, politically difficult and probably not successfull.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

What do you mean 'can'? Up to a few months ago - not many would have anticipated intervention by France or Britain in Libya. Forces have been committed from a number of states - would the same not be applicable to Syria, and if not - why?

I mean 'can.'

The Syrian military is a tad stronger than the Libyan one was. After all, it's designed with one of the most capable air forces in the world right next door in mind. That requires the contribution of a fair few assets, most of which are currently busy already in places like Libya or Afghanistan.

Then you have the problem that the EU powers have, to great derision, run out of ammunition. For example, the RAF only purchased 300 dual-mode Brimstone missiles, their weapon of choice over Libya. Insuficient budget for a meaningful amount, or something. Most have since been fired.

NTM

cuppa

well for me libya no fly zone was and is a huge mistake. Its a payback thing.

Teangalad

First of all this today..

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16250888

And now it has just been reported that the ship "alaed" sailing under the russian flag is docking with a hold full of Mi-25 Hinds, that is a serious statement form Russia, I don't know much about the syria /russian relationship other than the fact that they had quite a few ships from their fleet docked there at one stage.

The Master of Disaster

I posted on this in a thread on AH a few weeks ago and I also agree with all the points made by other posters viz. the terrain, Syrian army, Russian obtrusiveness etc., so I'm not going to repeat them but the one thing that's been overlooked is that all the main elements of the Syrian opposition, the SNC, NCC and FSA, have all openly said that they're opposed to foreign military intervention, unlike Libya where the NTC and most citizens let it be known that they were willing the West et al. to help them out. It wouldn't be much point throwing your weight behind somebody who doesn't want it.

extremebogman

without reading the entire thread, here's one very good reason. Syria has the best/most advanced air defences in the middle east http://defensetech.org/2012/06/28/what-do-we-know-about-syrias-air-defenses/

SamHarris

2 points.

Syria has oil, plenty of it in a world context. More than enough for CTers and far lefters to change their position were the US/NATO to have intervened to one of "The West cares nothing about human rights, they just want oil!". It never fails to astound me how many people define their position on international affairs in such simple and stark terms, often feeling the need to try and "stick one" to the West, as though they have somehow scored a point if they point out a nuance of policy.

Secondly, if people cant think of many reasons why the Syrian and Libyan crisies are different they are not thinking too hard or have the most 2 dimensonal view of our world. Scratch that. Even in 2d Syria and Libya would take up 2 very different areas and locations on the map. Theres difference enough not to try and toss in the exact same solutions for both.

Please never run for office if the thought even crossed your mind that they are exactly the same bar oil...