Intervention in Syria three years ago was the subject of a debate here, IIRC it was before Bashir Assad's regime launched such a harsh response street protests were replaced by a popular rebellion across a large swathe of Syria. Then again it became an issue after the gas attacks in Damascus.

I assume here that intervention means coercion.

I have not looked back at my post, but external Western overt military action was very unlikely to be enough to crack the Assad regime - such as disabling his air force. Nor have covert military options, notably supplying ATGM & SAM, enabled the opposition to defeat the regime, although as Crowbat repeatedly points out it has reduced the regime's capabilities.

Yes 'red lines' have been drawn, for apparently little effect, except as satisfying the politicians and diplomats need to show "we've done what we can".

Syria is now into its third year of a bitter civil war. A war that has no clear future and could drag on for a very long time - such is the bitterness on all sides.

Back to the UK angle. This week the UK stated refugee aid to Syria would reach US$900m. Hopefully this will have a far greater impact for those refugees than the small number (maybe hundreds) of UK nationals / residents fighting there - although as Crowbat recently pointed out real fighting is not their major role.

If the UK had joined in an early military intervention or after the gas attacks I do wonder if there would have been a domestic consensus supporting such a role. One of the questions for those who support intervention is not only what was the objective and the exit strategy, but when "our boys" are in the middle under fire what do we do then?