Britain's secret plan for 100,000 Syria rebel invasion force

Status
Not open for further replies.

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,063
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Revealed: Britain's secret plan for 100,000 Syria invasion force"
Published time: July 04, 2014 18:59

Source:
http://rt.com/uk/170564-uk-train-army-syria/

Britain was considering the option of training a massive, 100,000-strong army in Turkey and Jordan to defeat President Bashar Assad, according to a plan drawn up by a leading British general. The invasion was later scrapped as too risky.

The strategy, revealed by BBC Newsnight, involved Britain training a 100,000-strong rebel army in Jordan and Turkey over a 12-month period.

The rebels would have been trained by an international coalition armed with high-quality weaponry, and would have marched on Damascus with air cover provided by Britain and its allies.

The plan echoes the ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign used in Iraq during its initial invasion in 2003.

The idea was developed two years ago by Lord Richards, the UK Chief of Defense Staff at the time. During his tenure, he actively lobbied Prime Minister David Cameron to intensify the war effort in Libya, and directly target its then-leader Muammar Gaddafi, rather than just protect civilians.

The UK government has refused to comment on Newsnight’s revelations.

The idea was considered by Cameron and Dominic Grieve, the UK Attorney General, and sent to the National Security Council, Whitehall sources told BBC. But it was deemed too risky, they said.

Further options for Britain to intervene were also scrapped, as MPs voted against military action in a parliamentary vote last year.

This was not the first time the West mulled possible intervention scenarios since the Syrian civil war began in 2011.

Following an alleged but unproven chemical attack by the Syrian government in Ghouta, on Aug. 21, 2013, US President Barack Obama was under pressure to send American troops to aid Syrian rebels, having publicly set out a “red line” on chemical weapons use.

However, that decision was scaled back as opinion polls suggested an overwhelming number of Americans were against more military intervention overseas.

Reuters / Ints Kalnins

Reuters / Ints Kalnins

The West has been significantly involved in the Syria’s war, however.

Last year, reports showed that officers from the US, British and French armies were training rebel groups in Jordan, in an effort to strengthen more secular parts of Syria’s opposition.

Additionally, the CIA has also assisted Syria’s rebels since the war began – providing them with intelligence to use against Bashar-al-Assad’s forces. Other reports suggest that the CIA has funneled weapons and anti-tank missiles to the rebels through the Gulf States.

With Syria becoming even more unstable, with additional threats from the rebel militia group ISIS in Iraq, Obama has requested the US Congress to approve $500 million in funding to train moderate rebel groups, in a plan similar to the one put forward by the UK’s Lord Richards.

Commenting on the funding request, White House spokesperson Caitlin Hayden said: “While we continue to believe that there is no military solution to this crisis and that the United States should not put American troops into combat in Syria, this request marks another step toward helping the Syrian people defend themselves against regime attacks, push back against the growing number of extremists like ISIL who find safe-haven in the chaos, and take their future into their own hands by enhancing security and stability at local levels. “

According to the latest UN estimates, around 140,000 Syrians have died since the civil war began, while more than 7 million have become refugees – a number that is expected to rise as neighboring Iraq becomes increasingly unstable.
 
Bigger news would be that there has been no work done about different intervention options to Syria by major international or regional players (Russia, USA, France, UK, Turkey, Israel, etc.)

If for no other reason the planning would be good staff exercise. Not doing this kind of planning would be akin to criminal negligence.
 
Bear in mind the source of this report: Russia Today. They are about as reliable and reputable a news source as Pravda, the Weekly World News or MSNBC. For example, for the past day they've been flacking a "leaked memo" supposedly from the RAND Corporation that gives advice that the Ukrainians need to start exterminating ethnic Russians. The fact that it's almost certainly a cheap forgery? Irrelevant to RT.

Interestingly, the probably-fake memo seems to have originated at Above Top Secret. You know, the place where the SPF was formed... by running away from all the crazy there.
 
This story originally came from the BBC, which is about as fair and balanced as Russia Today, think MSNBC but state owned and a near monopoly. In reality it was one of a number of options prepared by military and foreign office staff and was rejected by the PM.
 
The bbc might be a little left leaning for some but they aren't often known for making things up. You might not always agree with their analysis but you can almost always accept on faith the fact that the facts they report are reported in good faith.
 
The BBC Newsnight story, so there! ;)

Published on Jul 3, 2014

A Newsnight investigation reveals advanced plans by the British military to intervene in the Syrian conflict by training moderate rebels.

Under a plan named "Extract, Equip, Train" drawn up by then Army chief General Sir David Richards 100,000 rebels in Syria would trained by the Britsh Army as Investigations Correspondent Nick Hopkins reports.
Follow @BBCNewsnight on Twitter
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight

http://youtu.be/lAYMDHysbzo
 
phrenzy said:
The bbc might be a little left leaning for some but they aren't often known for making things up. You might not always agree with their analysis but you can almost always accept on faith the fact that the facts they report are reported in good faith.

Actually it is very well known for making things up, recent examples include falsely accusing a Conservative politician of being a paedophile shortly after trying to cover up its own paedophile scandal, and trying to smear a charity dedicated to helping severely wounded military veterans. It is an institution which practices misdirection, dishonesty and propaganda as an art form.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Bear in mind the source of this report: Russia Today. They are about as reliable and reputable a news source as Pravda, the Weekly World News or MSNBC. For example, for the past day they've been flacking a "leaked memo" supposedly from the RAND Corporation that gives advice that the Ukrainians need to start exterminating ethnic Russians. The fact that it's almost certainly a cheap forgery? Irrelevant to RT.

Interestingly, the probably-fake memo seems to have originated at Above Top Secret. You know, the place where the SPF was formed... by running away from all the crazy there.

As a consumer of news, whatever its source, you have to bring a healthy dose of skepticism and consider the evidence that the journalist provides and also vet the information yourself. I provided the article for discussion purposes. I make no claims to the accuracy or truthfulness of the original BBC Newsnight segment on which this article is based. Nor do I endorse the story as truth. I leave it entirely up to the reader to determine for his or her self whether the story is truthful and accurate.
 
Triton said:
I provided the article for discussion purposes.
I'm tired of political shit at SPF. There are zillion other forums to discuss that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom