David Cameron Scraps Plan To Arm Rebels in Syria


British Prime Minister David Cameron is reportedly backing away from the idea that arms should be sent to rebels in Syria. The U.K., along with France, pushed for the European Union to lift its arms embargo on Syria back in May and has already announced plans to send non-lethal military aid to rebels.
According to The Telegraph senior members of the military have told Cameron that sending arms to rebels would be unlikely to make a difference in the conflict and could put British security at risk. The Telegraph reported that an unnamed source close to Downing Street confirmed that Cameron has dropped plans to send weapons to Assad's opposition in Syria. Unsurprisingly, a top commander from the rebel group the Free Syrian Army has spoken out against Cameron's decision, calling it a betrayal.
While members of Assad's opposition are understandably upset that the U.K. has revised its plans to send weapons it is the right thing for British officials to do.
The rebels in Syria are a diverse bunch, including jihadist groups with links to Al Qaeda, and it is understandable that senior military figures are concerned that arms sent to the rebels could end up in the hands of these jihadist groups.
Lawmakers in the U.S. are also hesitant to approve plans to send groups to rebels, citing similar concerns.
Although western support for sending weapons to rebels in Syria is waning Arab states have already sent weapons to Assad's opposition.
Of course Cameron's hesitancy to send weapons to rebels is not an indication that the British government is necessarily abandoning interventionism. Cameron has already shown that he is willing to intervene abroad given the right set of circumstances, having backed intervention in Libya, an operation that addressed a situation that while perhaps unwise to get involved in was not as complicated as the situation in Syria.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I have an idea. Arm everyone there. Everyone.
"Babies shootin' babies!"
We can't lose, seeing as how we will have armed the victors. And we're pushing a cherished civil liberty. While we're at it, a blog hosted for free for each citizen.
senior members of the military have told Cameron that sending arms to rebels would be unlikely to make a difference in the conflict and could put British security at risk.
Its a Trap!
/Admiral Akbar
Somehow I at first read that as "James Cameron Scraps Plan to Arm Rebels in Syria". My version is much more interesting. I assume James Cameron would deal in torpedoes?
Yes, I'm envisioning some sort of undersea warfare, fully funded--and filmed--by Cameron. In IMAX.
Aw, come on! What happened to rooting for the underdog?
The CIA is too busy to supply the weapons?!
'Don't get your hopes up for British Goodies.'
Does that mean Tim Brooke-Taylor, Graeme Garden, and Bill Oddie?
How can there be any downside to joining the fray in the growing intra-Arab War/Winter?
Isn't a plus that, once announced, Obama has pretty much walked away from the whole arming the rebels idea?