Why don't/can't Arab nations intervene in Syria?

[TheThreePashas]

Arab forum members, tell me something.

Syria's military right now is in much worse shape than most of the top spending Arab militaries. Naval theater is non-existant. There's a ton of rebels on the ground plus allied arab troops. The saudi airforce alone is miles ahead of Syria's.

What's stopping you?

War-fighting inexperience? Lack of funds (non-GCC countries)? Afraid of retaliation(scuds, Iran,etc.)? Other powerful countries stopping you?

If not these, than what?

 

[Surenas]

Without trolling, I think this is a legitimate question and people here should try to discuss the reasons for it in a civilized way.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

A- We don't live in a jungle ,whereby we can go and invade another country especially in times of a civil war or rebellion.
B- Both Russia and China had vetoed twice in the INTL security council, and according to the international law, permanent members of the UN reserve the right to vote in favor of or against, and their vote must be taken seriously.
C- Russia maintains a naval military base which represents half of the problem we have with them, because if they lose Assad, they will lose their military base as well.

That's my opinion, word, and remarks.

Please refrain from trolling.

 

[KingMamba]

The only Arab nation imo that could beat Syria is Egypt and they have plenty of their own problems atm. Maybe KSA but we have never seen them in battle so I cannot judge them on equipment alone. Most Arab nations troops are not battle ready compared to Syrian troops so I think they rather just keep with the proxy warfare and hope they can win with attrition.

Besides no one knows how Iran would react to Arabs declaring war on Syria, I am pretty sure they have a defense agreement of some sort.

 

[Falcon29]

They don't need to invade Syria to make a bigger difference, they can resort to many other possibilities but they purposefully aren't.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

The only Arab nation imo that could beat Syria is Egypt and they have plenty of their own problems atm. Maybe KSA but we have never seen them in battle so I cannot judge them on equipment alone. Most Arab nations troops are not battle ready compared to Syrian troops so I think they rather just keep with the proxy warfare and hope they can win with attrition.

Besides no one knows how Iran would react to Arabs declaring war on Syria, I am pretty sure they have a defense agreement of some sort.

Neither Egypt or KSA or any other country in the world would be interested in interfering in the Syrian conflict. Such decision must be taken through studying the countermeasures ,and the international community response.

 

[TheThreePashas]

A- We don't live in a jungle ,whereby we can go and invade another country especially in times of a civil war or rebellion.
B- Both Russia and China had vetoed twice in the INTL security council, and according to the international law, permanent members of the UN reserve the right to vote in favor of or against, and their vote must be taken seriously.
C- Russia maintains a naval military base which represents half of the problem we have with them, because if they lose Assad, they will lose their military base as well.

That's my opinion, word, and remarks.

Please refrain from trolling.

A) True but wars do happen and while the international community technically is against all "illegal" wars, the international community is also very subjective in its punishment.

B) International Law only matters to the point where a nation's interests are at stake enough to violate it. And when violated there are no consequences unless countries are willing to physically stop an "invasion" of Syria. Also, I doubt the USA and Russia could "agree on the wording" of a condemning UNSC Resolution. Basically a veto.

C) Just assure Russia that the base will stay after the regime change. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is in Cuba, a country with frozen relations with the USA.

The only Arab nation imo that could beat Syria is Egypt and they have plenty of their own problems atm. Maybe KSA but we have never seen them in battle so I cannot judge them on equipment alone. Most Arab nations troops are not battle ready compared to Syrian troops so I think they rather just keep with the proxy warfare and hope they can win with attrition.

Besides no one knows how Iran would react to Arabs declaring war on Syria, I am pretty sure they have a defense agreement of some sort.

But do you not think that the fact that countries like Jordan or Saudi arabia have far more advanced equipment matters? It's not like Syria's battle experience was very successful. When's the last time Syria won a war?

Would Iran be able to do much though? Any concentrated missile strike would **** off the USA and conventionally since they don't share a border with the states that would be part of the coalition that leaves their weaker Navy and Airforce to do all the work. Not a good idea.

Neither Egypt or KSA or any other country in the world would be interested in interfering in the Syrian conflict. Such decision must be taken through studying the countermeasures ,and the international community response.

There would be consequences obviously. But much much less than if even a fellow Muslim country like Turkey invaded. As much as there are differences between regions, Arabs are Arabs.

 

[Kompromat]

* US isn't ready for intervention.
* Iranian response is not calculated yet
* Russian naval base....the only foreign naval base they have.
* Arab military capability is unproven.
* Fear of blowbacks
* They want the Afghanistan model to be applied instead of intervention. [That will mean HUGE civilian death toll]

 

[420canada]

to my personal belief after what Israel did to them ... well you get the point

 

[TheThreePashas]

* US isn't ready for intervention.
* Iranian response is not calculated yet
* Russian naval base....the only foreign naval base they have.
* Arab military capability is unproven.
* Fear of blowbacks
* They want the Afghanistan model to be applied instead of intervention. [That will mean HUGE civilian death toll]

*I didn't mention US intervening
*True.
*And?
*True.
*From who?
*Afghanistan model? Afghanistan has nothing to do with the situation in Syria. If you mentioned Iraq I'd understand but Afghanistan is totally different

 

[FaujHistorian]

Arab forum members, tell me something.

Syria's military right now is in much worse shape than most of the top spending Arab militaries. Naval theater is non-existant. There's a ton of rebels on the ground plus allied arab troops. The saudi airforce alone is miles ahead of Syria's.

What's stopping you?

War-fighting inexperience? Lack of funds (non-GCC countries)? Afraid of retaliation(scuds, Iran,etc.)? Other powerful countries stopping you?

If not these, than what?

syria is turkey's backyard (or backwards yard) so Arabs should not invade while Turkey gets impacted daily.

 

[Gold1010]

Preety much what Aeronaut said minus US intervening, and maybe they just don't want to put there soldiers in a war, war isnt a nice thing and can have political consequences at home as well as financial.

 

[TheThreePashas]

syria is turkey's backyard (or backwards yard) so Arabs should not invade while Turkey gets impacted daily.

Sure, I agree it's more Turkey's problem because we're directly affected. But Arabs are watching Arabs die. We wouldn't let Turks die just because we don't border the country in question.


@Aussie4ever, War isn't nice. People die. It costs a lot. But the GCC countries are basically trying to get another country to fall into a trap and do what they want to happen.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@TheThreePashas

Not just Arabs watching arabs die.

It is just humans watching humans being butchered by Assad the black faced.


Let's not cheapen the discussion by making it Arab only issue. Because it is not.


peace

 

[Frogman]

Just to add something.

A UN peacekeeper proposal was touted some time ago and it was mainly going to be Arab troops the majority of which would be from Egypt given that the Egyptian armed forces has the most experience working with the UN (out of every Arab nation) in various war torn countries.

This isn't really an issue of conventional capabilities. Any nation now with a modest armed forces could probably make quick work of the SAA and the FSA. The real problem is whom to side with and what the future of Syria would be. No one wants another Afghanistan or Vietnam. Siding with the FSA would bring you into the good books of America as well as the Turks and the Gulf states, however, it would severly damage relations with the Russians and the Chinese, and say if you're Iraq, the Iranians.

Every nation is reluctant to intervene militarily in Syria due to the amount of troops you may lose and the political ramifications (UN lead or not). In addition to that every single nation is playing its own angle and so far its in none of the Arab states interest to intervene.