Why The Experts Are Warning Against A Military Intervention In Syria

Free Syrian Army fighters head towards the frontline, where clashes with forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar Assad are taking place in the al-Ziyabiya area in Damascus. Last week, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the US is considering providing weapons to the rebels, while Britain and France have also announced several times in recent months their desire to provide weapons to the rebel Free Syrian Army. Reuters

Intervention Debate: Experts Warn Against Syrian Adventure -- Spiegel Online

What contours might a military intervention in Syria take on? Strategists are discussing the creation of a humanitarian buffer and no-fly zone. But experts warn that 40,000 to 75,000 ground troops would be required in Syria for that to happen.

If you believe US President Barack Obama's antagonists, putting an end to the civil war in Syria is simple. All it would take is the establishment of a buffer zone for civilians, the provision of adequate protections for that zone and the distribution of arms to the right people in Syria and the problem will be gone -- at least so goes the tale as spun by Republican John McCain on Fox News. The best thing about his plan? That it could work without sending any American troops into the country. He argues an American invasion wouldn't be necessary to stop the civil war.

Read more ....

My Comment: No one is going to commit 40,000 to 75,000 ground troops to create a humanitarian buffer and no-fly zone. NATO has no money and it's member states do not have the military assets to deploy to the region. The U.S. is fed up with Middle Eastern wars, as well as having almost zero political will to commit troops .... especially since such an "adventure" will entail the loss of many good men and women and the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars. Bottom line .... the Syrians will have to face facts .... the Syrian civil war will need to be resolved by the Syrians themselves.