If comments are anything to go by, it is evident that the new Liberal National Coalition Tony Abbott government in Australia will not be too upbeat about punishing the Syrian government, like his predecessor Kevin Rudd was.

Abbott opened his mind on the subject in a media interview during the thick of election campaigning. He termed the civil conflict in Syria as not one involving "goodies versus baddies but baddies versus baddies." Although Abbott drew a lot of Labor flak for his comments, with Rudd describing it as "the most simplistic analysis I've ever heard".

"These remarks demonstrate that he is not competent and not comfortable with national security and foreign policy," Rudd said.

But all international conflicts need not be complicated. Abbott caution and his interpretation may be well-founded and entirely sensible. In fact, his interpretation of the civil conflict in Syria may be closer to the truth than Rudd's idea of punishing the Syria government.

Abbott's portrayal of the conflict a baddies versus baddies actually is a classy answer, which outlines the dangers involved in the international community taking sides in internal civil conflicts.

Rejecting Rudd's "simplistic analysis" comment, Abbott clarified that the Syrian civil conflict was being waged between "two more or less equally unsavoury sides".

"I think we're seeing a little bit more hyperventilation from a desperate and shrill government," he said, terming Rudd government's call for military strike on Assad's forces.

"On the one hand, we've got the Assad regime which is so barbaric that it seems to have used poison gas on its own people." he said.

"On the other hand, we have the Free Syrian Army and others who are heavily influenced by al Qaeda. So it is a civil war between two deeply unsavoury sides and that's why I make the point that we should be very careful about involvement in anything that would end up making a bad situation worse."

Defending his "baddies versus baddies" comment, Abbott added that "the odd use of colloquialism is perfectly appropriate if you are trying to explain to the public exactly what the situation is".

Importantly, for the international community, Abbott's comments about the situation in Syria; may also be reflected in his government's position, at the UN Security Council where Australia assumed the rotating presidency.

Interestingly, Obama's effort to seek Congressional approval and British Parliament's votes against possible military action in Syria are all reflections of this caution.

However, much is not expected to change on the ground. If the U.S. decides to strike Assad's forces, Australia is bound to tag along. Abbott is clear about Australian loyalties.

"Obviously it is the general disposition of the Australian Government, whether it be a Labor government or a Coalition government, to be supportive of the United States and our other allies. It's the general disposition of the Australian Government to stand up for the universal decencies of humanity. I just think we need to be very careful in a situation like this because we can easily make a bad situation worse by acting precipitously and I would be very cautious in a situation like this."

However, Abbott still does not see the possibility of Australia military on the ground.

"There is almost zero probability of that being sought. We have no military forces in the Mediterranean. We have no capacity to engage in the kind of strikes which the US is apparently considering against Syria. I don't think we should be getting above ourselves here. We are a significant middle power, but no more. Our capacity for major military involvement in the Middle East is quite limited."

Now that is what a comprehensive and unpretentious reading of the Syrian civil conflict looks like.

RELATED STORIES