Intervention in Syria would only change who is killing whom

We don't know who used chemical weapons in Syria. David Cameron claims the Syrian government used them 10 times previously. Yet UN investigations of chemical attacks earlier this year found the rebels may have carried them out.

They have a motive to frame Bashar al Assad's regime to get Nato to attack it.

They've captured government weaponry and military bases. Some Syrian military defectors and western experts believe the rebels may already have chemical weapons.

All three sides in Syria - Mr Assad's, al Qaeda and the other rebels, including many of the Free Syrian Army, are torturing, killing and ethnically cleansing civilians. So intervention against Mr Assad's forces would not save civilians.

Previous interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya neither saved civilian lives nor ended torture, only changing who is killing whom.

Intervention also risks World War Three with Russia. Kosovo is often cited as a precedent for intervening without UN Security Council authorisation. During it Nato Commander Wesley Clark ordered British General Mike Jackson to seize Pristina airport from Russian troops. Gen Jackson refused, saying: "I'm not starting World War Three for you."

Some believe that not putting troops on the ground will avoid all risks. It won't. Syria has an effective air force and Russian anti-aircraft missiles; and President Putin has said Russia will not tolerate Nato air forces operating in Syria. Not having troops on the ground will also mean retaliation could come in the form of terrorist attacks in Nato countries.

Providing aid to Syrian refugees in other countries and asylum to some here could save many lives.

So could encouraging a power-sharing deal between Mr Assad and the rebels, or even an interim power-sharing government to oversee new elections. That would require allowing Iran and Russia to attend peace talks.

Duncan McFarlane,

Beanshields, Braidwood, Carluke.

IAIN Macwhirter is right, again ("The West must not repeat the tragic mistake of Iraq", The Herald, August 29).

There is a stalemate in the civil war in Syria. As long as Mr Assad has the support of Russia, China and Iran he cannot be defeated by assorted groupings of rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters. The tipping point (the Libya scenario) is Western military intervention from the air. But the West needs a pretext. Now apparently it has one.

So why would Mr Assad want to use chemical weapons? He would lose the support of three powerful friends and would on a plate give the West its much-needed intervention option.

There are others in the region and beyond who covertly (possibly using Syrian surrogates) could have used chemical weapons in order to set up the context for military intervention, to swing the balance towards the anti-Assad forces.

The Syrian scenario is much too complex for a simple "bomb them" reaction, with uncertain and dangerous possible consequences.

Until there is verifiable proof that Mr Assad committed these atrocities then patience and diplomacy must be the strategy.

The Iraq war, as Iain Macwhirter warns, has taught us much, the main lesson being: do not trust politicians who want to win votes at home by fighting wars over there.

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

YOU report that at least 71 people have been killed and more than 200 injured in a series of car bombs across Baghdad and that the situation in Syria has aggravated sectarian tensions in Iraq, but practically the whole of the Middle East is a volatile cauldron which could explode at any moment ("Dozens die in Iraqi blast as sectarian tensions rise", The Herald, August 19). Violence begets more violence and the last thing the region needs is for what would be seen as provocative and meddling US and UK intervention. It is all very well to talk of proportionate and legal action, but I doubt if the man on the Middle Eastern street would believe that, or the terrorist respect it.

This is a time for cool heads and diplomatic language. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon showed both with his plea to give peace a chance, and Iain Macwhirter was right to quote those words in his factual, measured and timely article, which should have been required reading for all of Westminster's MPs.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

WELL done, David Cameron, for stepping back from the brink even though apparently he didn't need to recall Parliament and could have started military action against Mr Assad, even if he lost the parliamentary vote.

But if it is shown that chemical weapons were used by the rebels, would there be a strike against them? I hear no talk of that, which tells me that regime change is the objective, and that is as illegal now as it was in Iraq.

A military strike is being described as "a shot across the regime's bows". But a shot across the bows is a harmless signal to send a message. A military strike will kill people. There is no such thing as a "surgical" strike. This is nursery talk.

Donald Black,

21 Montogmery Crescent, Dunblane.

KM Campbell rightly highlights our heavily-depleted Scottish regiments as military action is debated over the appalling Assad atrocities in Syria (Letters, August 28). I would dispute the writer's statement of our "ownership" of submarines at Faslane when the Pentagon holds the key of their weapons systems.

George Devlin,

Rosebank, 6 Falcon Terrace Lane, Glasgow.