The United Nations in late August investigated the nation of Syria for the use of chemical weapons. In a 41 page report, the U.N. explains that without a shadow of a doubt, sarin gas was deployed over a region near Damascus. There is speculation as to who utilized the toxin, but there is little evidence to state that the rebels, who are currently battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, possessed this type of weapon. Many believe that al-Assad’s regime is the one who should take the blame because they do indeed have the chemical. Either way there is an estimated loss of 1400 Syrian civilians.
This weekend, the United States and Russia have agreed on a plan that Syria must abide by in order to avoid further conflict. The plan states that: Syria must submit a list of all the chemical weapons they own, by November there must be international inspectors and by the end of that month they must survey all weapon sites and all equipment to make sure they are destroyed, and by the middle of next year all of them must be gone. If the country does not yield to these parameters, they are subject to further scrutiny. In other words if Syria does not comply, the U.S. is entitled to utilize military action and force them to.
After these actions that can be considered acts of war, many Americans are calling for a military intervention. While it is agreeable that what has taken place is absolutely detestable, and something must be done, circumstances are more complicated than one can see.
If we were to take military action, how would we go about doing it? This large an undertaking
cannot be conducted through the use of missiles and aerial strikes. The only way to significantly impact al-Assad’s regime would be through manpower. What is our goal? The deployment of troops would be necessary to purge the country of its chemical weapons and it wouldn’t be easy. After ten years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, is this the most attractive option? We are unwanted in that region and while the rebels need aid it may not be in our best interests. Not only would we be stirring up the already unstable pot which is the Middle East, but we would be putting ourselves in direct conflict with Russia, Iran and China, who have stated that they would support the Syrian government. In the aforementioned agreement, Russia has veto power and refuse to allow forceful action against Syria. In addition, if we were to continue to impose ourselves in the region, all our allies have denied supplying aid. Great Britain and France are tentative and most likely will refuse to provide support. There’s a possibility if America were to initiate military action, that we would be alone.
When determining a stance on Syria, it is necessary that we consider every angle. We have many reasons to provide help to the rebels, and we have and will continue to administer humanitarian aid. But there are many signs telling us that military intervention will not be necessary, especially with the new deal in place.