Pro: Walking away will cause damage
By: Joseph Mollath
Often, when individuals consider foreign affairs, they will simply go along with the common knowledge they have, rather than assessing the information. It is common for people to only assess situations from one side. Many Americans today simply are not well enough informed to make an informed decision on Syria. To rectify this situation, it is important to consider what the benefits are of taking action against Syria.
The first point for taking action in Syria is the standard being set for oppressive governments. Since World War II, the United States has been involved in many different situations worldwide. Some conflicts, such as the war in Iraq, have had disappointing results. Whether we like it or not, America is a global power, and we’ve made ourselves a defender against oppression and injustice. On this very issue, President Obama made a stance that if chemical weapons were used, then there would be repercussions for the party using them. There has been confirmation that chemical weapons were used in Syria, and now it falls on Obama's shoulders to take action. If America allows injustices like this to slip through the cracks, other oppressive governments will take advantage of the situation and exploit the standard being set by American international policy.
Additionally, it is important to note that the threat of war from Russia against United States involvement in Syria is completely empty. Russia has interest in Syria because their last remaining functional base outside of Russia is located in Syria. While no one wants to enter another Cold War, there is something that will block all action by Russia. This powerful force is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, more commonly known as NATO. NATO is an agreement between numerous nations that if any member nation is attacked, the rest of the members will bring military force against the aggressor. Any action taken by Russia against the United States will result in the entirety of the NATO members, including France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, coming to America’s aid. Thus, Russia’s threats are empty words by an Ex-KGB member trying to scare people into action. This does not justify going into Syria, but it does eliminate the Russia factor as a deterrent.
A third point to consider is that human rights have been violated by the use of chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons is vicious and indiscriminate killing method. Over four hundred children were killed by chemical weapons, and the slaughter of innocents is bound to continue unless checked.
Whatever action is taken, it is important to assess the benefits as well as the consequences of any action America takes in international policy. In this case, however, it seems the pros outweigh the negatives and Syria’s oppressive government must be combated.
Con: We have too much at risk to leave
By: Devon Bozeman
In recent discussions of U.S. military intervention in Syria, the controversial issue is whether or not intervention is in the best interest of the United States. Some argue that the death toll of over 40,000 Syrian civilians since 2011 and the supposed chemical weapon usage by Bashar al Assad, in the words of Fortes Latifi, “is unquestionably a crime against humanity that [Assad] must be held responsible for.”
From this perspective, it seems because Assad is murdering so many innocents in direct violation of human rights — by using chemical weapons — the U.S. must step in to prevent any more civilians from being killed.
At first glance, these facts may cause one to assume there will be no consequences for America if we order a precision strike on Syria. So why doesn't the U.S. get involved so we can save many helpless civilians and refugees by weakening Assad and his military?
Common sense seems to dictate that if we were to attack Syria, someone somewhere would not be very happy. In this case, it’s Russia. In recent weeks, they have threatened to retaliate, not against the U.S., but their allies, if the U.S. does choose to strike. This could possibly lead to deaths of many U.S. allies, not to mention Americans as well.
Let's also remember why the U.S. wants to bomb Syria in the first place: to save civilians. The drone strikes President Obama intends to use are not so precise, as we learned from the many civilian casualties in Libya caused by these so-called strikes. The bombing would result in more civilian deaths because it's very difficult to target one of about four different rebel groups that are involved in the civil war.
The interest of the U.S. should be withdrawal, considering Syria is not threatening to attack the U.S. or our allies. If the U.S. were to attack Syria, it would be a direct violation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which states, “The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense and when the Security Council approves such action,” which they have not. So the question is, why is the U.S. government still debating this?
President Obama has already stated that if Assad crosses the red line by using chemical weapons, he will get the U.S. military involved. He has failed to act on this claim for several reasons.
One, the citizens of the U.S. are almost entirely against military intervention. Two, the president does not want to get into a more serious conflict with a country like Russia. Three, Russia has actually agreed to hand over the chemical weapons into international possession. Lastly, the Obama Administration has not provided any hard evidence confirming Assad was responsible for the attack. In fact, there is mounting evidence suggesting the rebels were the responsible party.
So, is military intervention in Syria in the best interest of the United States? One must ask if is it the United States' job to play the world police. Yes, Assad has killed many civilians, but so have many of the other rebel groups. Why would any one group ruling be better than the other? Would bombing Syria stop the war and the deaths of civilians? The last thing the U.S. needs is a another war and another attempt to prevent civilian casualties.
Most Americans readily agree that Syria's use of chemical weapons crosses the line. Where this agreement usually ends is on the question of whether the attack was Assad's action or one of the rebel groups’. There is a lack of evidence that the chemical attack was done by Assad and a very likely chance military intervention would not stop the war, but get us in trouble with Russia and lose us the opportunity to peacefully receive the weapons. Military intervention is not in the best interest of the United States.
