The UK drew up plans to train and equip a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army to defeat President Bashar al-Assad, BBC Newsnight can reveal.<\/p>\n
The secret initiative, put forward two years ago, was the brainchild of the then most senior UK military officer, General Sir David Richards.<\/p>\n
It was considered by the PM and the National Security Council, as well as US officials, but was deemed too risky.<\/p>\n
The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n
Lord Richards, as he is now, believed his proposal could stem the civilian bloodshed in Syria as rebels fought troops loyal to Mr Assad.<\/p>\n
The idea was considered by David Cameron and Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, and sent to the National Security Council, Whitehall sources said.<\/p>\n
It was also put to senior figures in Washington, including General Martin Dempsey, the US’s most senior military officer.<\/p>\n
‘Extract, equip, train’<\/p>\n
With ministers having pledged not to commit British “boots on the ground”, his initiative proposed vetting and training a substantial army of moderate Syrian rebels at bases in Turkey and Jordan.<\/p>\n
Mr Cameron was told the “extract, equip, train” plan would involve an international coalition.<\/p>\n
It would take a year, but this would buy time for an alternative Syrian government to be formed in exile, the PM was told.<\/p>\n
Once the Syrian force was ready, it would march on Damascus, with the cover of fighter jets from the West and Gulf allies.<\/p>\n
The plan envisaged a “shock and awe” campaign, similar to the one that routed Saddam’s military in 2003, but spearheaded by Syrians.<\/p>\n
Opportunity ‘missed’<\/p>\n
Though the plan was put to one side at the time, Mr Cameron was later persuaded to consider military action when evidence emerged of chemical weapons use in Syria.<\/p>\n
However, MPs voted against giving authority for a direct intervention last August.<\/p>\n
The US and UK accused the Assad government of being behind the attacks, but Damascus blamed rebel groups.<\/p>\n
Monzer Akbik, spokesman for the Syrian National Coalition, an opposition alliance, said: “The international community did not intervene to prevent those crimes and at the same time did not actively support the moderate elements on the ground.<\/p>\n
“A huge opportunity was missed and that opportunity could have saved tens of thousands of lives actually and could have saved also a huge humanitarian catastrophe.”<\/p>\n
‘No good options’<\/p>\n
Professor Michael Clarke, of the Royal United Services Institute think tank, added: “We have missed the opportunity to train an anti-Assad force that would have real influence in Syria when he is removed, as he will be.<\/p>\n
“I think there was an opportunity two or three years ago to have become involved in a reasonably positive way, but it was dangerous and swimming against the broader tide of history\u2026 and the costs and the uncertainties were very high.”<\/p>\n
He said it was now too late for the West to get involved.<\/p>\n
“Western policymakers in a sense have got to have the courage to do nothing and to work on what comes after the civil war,” he said.<\/p>\n
“There are no good options over Syria. It is a slow-motion road accident.”<\/p>\n
Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria.<\/p>\n