Concerns mount over risk of triggering deeper conflict The US, Britain and France are pressing ahead with plans for a surgical strike on Syria, punishing the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons. But senior military figures and experts on both sides of the Atlantic are expressing strong concern about the purpose of such a strike - fearing it could drag the west into an unintended war. The stated aim of the US and its allies is to deter the Assad regime from using chemical weapons again, without the west taking sides in the Syrian civil conflict or implementing a policy of regime change. But in Britain, some of the most senior figures in the military establishment are deeply sceptical about the merits of a one-off surgical strike, arguing it could quickly drag the US and its allies into a much deeper conflict. "The idea that the west can neatly restrict any attack to a short duration punishment with the limits drawn exclusively by us is naive in the extreme," says a senior British military commander, speaking privately. Ultimately one can't help but think that these attack plans are more about restoring US authority than about helping to resolve a vicious civil war in Syria. In the US, military analysts are expressing similar doubts. "The comments from anonymous senior officials that a potential strike against Syria would be "punitive" are alarming," says Christopher Harmer of the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. A strike taken to punish leaders does not constitute a strategy or even a sound military objective. Over the past few days the operational plan for the strike on Syria, which could come as early as this weekend, has been heavily briefed to media both by the US and its allies. Military planners are contemplating a 48-hour bombardment involving sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. The aim of the operation will be to hit Assad regime military targets, but not its chemical weapons sites. Such a move would risk releasing poisoned gas into the atmosphere. "It can't be a political attack aimed at regime change so it has to be purely military in its focus," says one defence insider. The US and its allies will be looking to hit Syrian command-and-control bunkers and aircraft. They may also look at organisations commanded by Assad's brother, Maher, given the strong indications that his forces carried out last week's chemical attack. Western powers clearly believe that they can deliver a self-contained "short, sharp strike" that deters the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons again. But former military figures question whether the US will meet its objectives. Some argue that the impending operation may well be so restricted as to be futile, with little impact on the Assad regime. Admiral Lord West, the former head of Britain's Royal Navy, played a leading role during the Nato operation against Serbia in 1999. "A two-day bombardment of Syria will make Assad's eyes water but it won't achieve much," he says. It took 78 days of bombing Serbia before we moved the Milosevic regime out of Kosovo. Even then, people forget that we only succeeded because the US and UK were threatening a land invasion. At the same time, Lord West and others fear that the US-led operation might go the other way and have serious unintended consequences. "There are so many issues that need to be thought through," says the senior British military commander quoted earlier. What if our bluff is called and Assad uses chemical weapons again? What if we hit innocent civilians or, more likely, Russian technicians assisting the Syrian army? What is the "branch" or follow-up plan if our aim is not achieved first time round? What if the regime and its backers retaliate by launching scud missiles at the UK sovereign base in Cyprus? I doubt whether people have really thought through how we will respond then. Mr Harmer of the Institute for the Study of War concedes that conflict is inherently unpredictable and this should not be a reason to paralyse decision-making. "But it is necessary to articulate the desired objective clearly," he says. The fall of the Assad regime is one clear objective. Depriving Assad of the ability to use or proliferate chemical weapons is another. Punishing Assad for using chemical weapons is not.