POST #3: SYRIA

Serious stuff here. Lets get right into it.

Syria. For the past 2 years, the Middle Eastern country has been embedded in an awful civil war. What started as another reform/protest movement as part of Arab Spring, the situation quickly turned to a bloody civil war when the President Bashar Al Assad sent armed forces onto the protestors across the nation, killing thousands.

Over the past two years, numerous groups have been fighting against the grip of the Assad regime, making slow advances against the military. From what we hear though (Few journalists are allowed inside the country so information about the situation is limited), the military has also been targeting civilians along with the rebel fighters, with the death toll over 100,000.

The West has kept their eyes on the situation since it’s beginning. Like any post-Vietnam War President, President Obama has not been keen about the idea of getting into another armed conflict with no clear goal. The American people have made it clear they do not want another Iraq or Afghanistan. The nation is evidently tired of war. However, Obama drew a red-line at the use of chemical weapons.

And Last Monday, that line was crossed.

Multiple reports show that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons against the civilian public, killing thousands. Many of those killed being women and children.  When the U.N. asked to investigate the situation, they were turned away until 5 days later. The U.S. claims that the Syrian government used this time to cover up their tracks before allowing the U.N. to investigate, and that any information that the U.N. brings back would have been tainted with.

So now that we’ve crossed the “red-line”, what is next?

The Syria conflict is an awful situation for the rest of the world. Not “incredibly” important to any major country (aside from possibly Russia, who is a large trading partner with the middle eastern nation), no one is incredibly anxious to get involved in a conflict that they have no economic interest in. However, most nations realize that something has to be done if chemical weapons are being used against civilians. While it is largely accepted that the chemical weapons have been used, many nations are choosing to wait for the U.N.’s official report on Monday’s attack before taking any major action.

So why the delay? If the American government knows that something has to be done, why wait for others? Why not just drop an entire army into the country and overthrow the regime?

It’s complicated.

AT HOME:

As stated earlier, support from the American People is lacking. Many agree that something has to be done, but want to avoid an Afghanistan/Iraq like conflict that we can’t get out of. Vietnam was no different, in the aspect that support for the war was very low. These “mistakes” in our past makes everyone very uneasy about getting into another armed conflict. So any decision the President makes will weigh heavily with citizens (a.k.a. voters).

Not only does the President lack support from the general public, he doesn’t have overwhelming support from Congress either. Congress, which has been kept out of almost every decision regarding armed conflict since World War Two, has demanded to have a say in the decision as whether or not to strike Syria. Presidents have used many loopholes to get around Article I, Section 8 of the constitution that limits the power to enter a war to Congress over the past century. However without support from the people, entering a unpopular war without Congressional approval would be political suicide, thus Obama has asked Congress to vote on a strike when they return to Washington on September 9^th.

ABROAD:

Although America has largely been considered one of the greatest countries in the world, it has also garnered a reputation of getting itself into matters that it doesn’t have any right to be in. Many people have criticized many of our past armed conflicts as gross overreach. So any foreign affair is going to be thoroughly analyzed by the government.

The President also lacks foreign allies. Our partner-in-crime across the pond, Great Britain, has already prevented an armed strike through a vote in Parliament, despite Prime Minister David Cameron’s support for such a measure. And Russia, our fellow U.N. Security Council member, has vetoed any possible U.N. military coalition against Syria. The country has deep economic interest in Syria as a major trading partner, but is quickly losing it footing over defending the regime as more and more atrocities are revealed.

AL QAEDA:

Now assuming for a moment that the U.S.A. topples the Syrian regime and opens the country up for new leadership, who takes over? The problem is that the largest rebel group in Syria is largely supported by Al Qaeda, the same group we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers. The U.S. now has to figure out how to save the civilians without letting the rebels take power; certainly not an easy task. An option would be to install a west-friendly leader into the country after deposing the regime, but the last time we did that in Iran after World War 2, we essentially made enemies with the entire Middle East. So long story short: Its not really a viable route.

FINAL OPINIONS

The reality is that there is no easy solution to the Syria problem. Any action we take (or don’t take) will have serious consequences. The Military already has ships in position to make a strike if needed, but Congress won’t make a decision about the matter until they return next week. The Syrian people are in dire need of some help, but nobody is ready to step up to the plate. If we attack we my be seen as aggressors, but if we choose to do nothing, people may look back and view our lack of action as a disregard for the basic human rights of the Syrian people. There is no right answer.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Feel free to respond in the comment section below!