Monday, 17 June 2013


The tragic conflict in Syria where it is estimated that 93,000 people have died already and where there are thousands of refugees who have left the country, is featured daily in the media. It has prompted suggestions that Britain should intervene by supplying the rebels with arms. We are assured that this would not mean military intervention. However, some British military involvement would be inevitable to train the recipients to use the weapons supplied.

The conflict is basically an Islamic one between the Sunni and Shi’ite branches of the Islamic faith. Russia and Iran are already involved and it seems that fighters are now being imported from Lebanon. Our experience should show that intervention in a conflict which has nothing to do with us can only achieve very little; we have the examples of Iran and Afghanistan.

Our involvement should, I believe, be restricted to humanitarian aid. It worries me that any involvement in the supply of arms would ultimately lead to our military forces becoming involved. If there is to be any outside military action surely it should come from the United Nations? We should continually pray for peace in Syria.

1 comment:

  1. I submit that the conflict is primarily between Russia and EU/US, and is concerned with Russia's influence in the Middle East: Syria is the last country in the region that could be counted as a Russian ally. The Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims are just convenient (and expendable) tools in a proxy war.

    And then you have the various minority groups (not just the Christian one) who are caught in the middle and function as convenient targets and scapegoats.

    I heard a couple of months ago that in one small town just outside Aleppo, there had been more deaths in the first three months of 2013 than in the whole of the previous ten years. Most of these deaths were due to malnutrition, starvation and lack of medical care.

    The Syrian people are dying in the name of international politics.