Post 1 for 2013!
Please answer the following prompt by class time on Friday, Sept 13th. Your answer should be well explained and use sources to support your argument. You are expected to cite your sources but you are not required to use MLA formatting. Please include links to internet source. Your goal is to use at least 3 sources in your post. Please proofread before posting. Your post will be read by me, your classmates, and even potentially others. :) A great place to look for arguments you might want to use is the opinion section of any major newspaper. See me if you need help researching or writing your post. I look forward to reading what you have to read.
The US Congress will vote soon whether to give the president the authority to conduct military strikes on Syria. If you were a member of the Congress would you vote yes or no to authorize the president's plan and why?
If you watch the Congressional debate(s) on CSPAN on this for your government observation paper you can use them as a source for this as well.
If you need background considering the topic I would recommend the following resources to familiarize yourself with the situation in Syria:
- BBC: The BBC has put together a page with articles on Syria & key background
- From the Washington Post "9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask" See me if you need more help
- From PBS "Your Cheat Sheet to the Syrian Conflict"
- From NPR "Which Bad Syria Option Do You Prefer"
Please don't use the articles I recommended as your own research. You still need your own research. Thanks.
Note: you will be graded on how & whether you back up your opinion with evidence. You will NOT be evaluate on your opinion.
Note: you will be graded on how & whether you back up your opinion with evidence. You will NOT be evaluate on your opinion.
Labels: Congress, foreign policy, president
posted by maby-keirstead @ 1:15 PM
57 Comments:
i think blah blah blah blah
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do not believe that we, as the Americans, should intervene in Syria, at least not in the sense that Obama is trying to get Congress to agree upon. My first point is that it would be a massive diversion from important policies and issues inside the United States itself, such as the impending budget crisis. This may come off as a little selfish, but right now, the U.S. has a lot of things it needs to really think about, and while Syria may be one of them, going to Syria with lots of dangerous weapons and an intent to use them would be a massive diversion from the domestic issues also present.(Syria Resolution) It may seem a little selfish, but I, at least, am inclined to say that we really should work on solving our own issues instead of trying to solve other people’s. That only generates discontent with other nations and a sense that the United States is out to rule the world. But that is not all. Both the Iraqi and the Iranian foreign ministers have confirmed that the U.S. intervention would likely lead to more conflict with Syria’s neighbors. (Iraq joins Iran..) However, it should be noted that both countries would be dragged into this because of their own ties to Syria; Both Iraqi and Iranian military groups have supported Assad, Syria’s leader. The U.S. striking would cause a bigger conflict to emerge out of the Syria question. There may be a rift in the Middle East, but it seems quite likely that U.S. intervention would make that rift bigger, and cause even bigger backlash against the U.S. But then there’s the last of my reasons; the cost. As it turns out, the current plan for dealing with Syria relies on the usage of air-dropped bombs and missile strikes. From current word, they’re going to use even more than previously announced across a variety of targets, well over fifty, provided, of course, that intervention is approved of.(la-fg-syria) This, to me, sounds expensive and extraordinarily clumsy. The average cruise missile cost is over 1 million dollars.(wikipedia) That is 1 million dollars essentially thrown away in causing death, destruction, and it only is used once. With over 50 targets, assuming one per target, if we’re lucky, that would be over 50 million dollars. 8 figure number. And the purpose of those over-50 strikes is to scare Assad away from using chemical weapons. Yeah, I may not have mentioned it, but the latest pin in this grenade is the use of chemical weapons against civilians. That may be bad, but to use a very plain metaphor, we are using a bigger stick on someone who’s been using a big stick. It’s clumsy, it’s brutish, it’s stupidly expensive and impractical. There are so many better options that this, including shipping weapons to the freedom fighters, and the last notable time we did that, it created Al Qaeda! While I can’t say that we should stay out of the situation completely, out of any sense of morals, America has domestic issues at home that need to be faced, while a carry-through of the intervention would pull in more countries into this while also creating massive costs for the United States in a neanderthalic and degrading manner. It’s in our self-interest to stay out of Syria, and give any support we dare give in covert manners.
Works Cited:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/syria-resolution-could-stall-congresss-work-on-divisive-domestic-issues/2013/09/07/f748a6b0-1735-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraq-joins-iran-in-opposing-us-led-military-strike-in-syria/2013/09/08/9187c1f6-18b8-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-syria-strikes-20130908,0,6708714.story
It is my very strong belief that as a nation we should not engage in a violent military operation in Syria for numerous reasons. My first reason not to go to war is that if we did, the majority of people at home would not support it. According to a recent poll done by the New York Times, 62% believe we should stay out of other countries affairs, 72% say we should not try to instill a dictator there that we want, and a whopping 79% believe the Obama administration has not yet clearly outlined the goals in Syria (1).
Also, according to a Fox News poll, a mere 36% favor using force to punish Syria (4). On top of this, I believe there are much more important issues here at home we need to focus on. With the soaring deficit, recent Government corruption and scandals (IRS, NSA, Benghazi if you will,) and weak economy, we should be focusing our attention and resources to domestic issues here at home. My next big point is the information (or lack thereof) that we have. We don't know nearly enough or have enough information about what is really going on. In July, Rebels say they captured Khan al-Assal, the last major government-held town in the west of Aleppo Province, after two months of successful government offensives (3). Later in August, Rebels accused pro-Assad forces of using chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 300 people near Damascus. The Syrian government then blamed the rebels (3). What really went down here? Who really used the chemical weapons? Did the rebels use them to instigate U.S. intervention, and is the U.S. not being given enough or false info about the situation? There are no clear answers to these questions at the moment, and there should be absolutely no action done until they are. My third (and less important) point is the question of whether this an important issue of humanity to Obama, or is it a political stunt to make himself seem as more of a strong and decisive leader. While this may be just an opinion, it is an important factor to the situation. My fourth point is that there are other legitimate alternatives instead of military conflict. One idea would be to form a multilateral coalition of powerful governments with the same anti-war intentions such as Russia, China, France, and the U.K. In addition, a tough U.N. sanction could punish Assad just as much as a military strike (2). Another option would be to engage Middle East and global interfaith partners. These people could try to persuade the Dictatorship to use peace through religious and diplomatic discussions (2). My final and most important point is that 1) Neither side is a peaceful side, nor does either of them like Americans, and 2) This "small" conflict is highly likely to cause many more major ones. On one hand you are fighting against an evil, power-drunk leader who is using chemical weapons against his own citizens. On the other, you have a group of Al-Qaeda Islamic extremists who strongly dislike America and will not tolerate or accept any other religions (such as Judaism and Christianity.) It is a lose-lose situation to get involved. Assad warned the U.S. what may happen if we attack him "You should expect everything. Not necessarily from the government. The government is not the only player in this region. You have different parties, you have different factions, you have different ideology. You have everything in this region now. So you have to expect that." He also warned that terrorist groups who support his regime might also respond to any U.S. strike with attacks on their own (5). So with all of this taken into account, It is my belief that a military strike in Syria is the most foolish and worst thing we could possibly do at the moment. We should stay out of Syria or find out more information before we make a decision.
Works Cited:
1) NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/parsing-syria-developments-ahead-of-obamas-address.html?ref=syria&_r=0
2) UPIhttp://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2013/09/09/US-Intervention-in-Syria-Other-options-besides-military-action/PC-1581378736372/
3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995
4)http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/fox-news-poll-despite-chemical-weapons-voters-oppose-us-action-in-syria/
5) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/09/syria-bashar-assad-chemical-weapons-cbs-interview-warning/2784995/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I do not think that the United States should attack Syria. I think this because such an attack would be accompanied by several unnecessary risks. First, Iran has considered retaliating against the US embassy in Baghdad should the US attack Syria (1). As the US is currently involved with two other countries in the Middle East, and can’t even afford those wars, it would seem a terrible idea to spend more money that the government doesn’t have on such an endeavor. Second, Iran has very close ties with Russia because Iran gets a significant amount of weapons from them. Seeing as our relationship with Russia is strained at the best of times, it would seem a terrible idea to risk angering them further. It has also been speculated that the attack on Syria is illegal based on the laws set down by the United Nations. International law provides no justification whatsoever to a member of the UN attacking another member to punish them for chemical weapon use (2). The UN was created to prevent attacks like this causing another global conflict, which could easily erupt if other countries in the Middle East and Russia come to Syria’s aid (2). And finally, this strike is opposed by the majority of the American population. Nearly two thirds of the American population believe it’s not worth it to attack Syria to help the rebels remove the government (3). Also a majority believes it’s not worth it to attack Syria to punish the government for using chemical weapons (3). Especially since the US’s track record in chemical weapons is not as clean was we would like to believe. The US used white phosphorus during the Iraq war in the mid 2000’s which caused an increase in cancer rates and birth deformities, not to mention the copious use of napalm and agent orange during the Vietnam War (2). This chemical weapons history means that a strike on Syria would be bordering hypocrisy for the US government. If the US intends to interfere in Syria however, there are many ways other than direct military attacks that could be used. For example, the government has considered training Syrian rebels to help them overthrow the government (4). This action would help the US overthrow the tyrannical Syrian government and punish them for chemical weapon use without attacking them directly. Because of all the risks involved and the lack of any clear benefits, I believe the US should stay out of the Syria affair. However if the US is intent on interfering, we should do so without directly attacking until all other possible ways have been tried.
1). http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/07/iran-may-be-planning-to-retaliate-if-u-s-strikes-syria-official-says/?iref=allsearch
2). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/us-attack-on-syria-would-_b_3859812.html
3). http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/09/cnn-poll-why-its-not-worth-attacking-syria/?iref=allsearch
4). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/us-training-syria-rebels_n_3876314.html
In my personal opinion, I would vote yes to authorize the President’s plan to conduct military strikes in Syria. I say yes for three main reasons. My first reason is that using chemical weapons against one’s own country, like President Bashar al-Assad has done to his people of Syria, is an inhumane act that was highly unnecessary. The death tolls from this horrible government act are 1,429 people killed in the Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21, including at least 426 children (3). President Assad cannot go unpunished for this wicked crime he has done to his own people. My second reason for intervention in Syria is we need to make sure that other powers that support Syria, like Russia, don’t join forces against us. Russia is Syria’s most important ally(2). Russia is enabling Syria’s government to do the deeds that they are doing by providing lots of weapons that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene (2). That’s why our time to intervene is now. Things in Syria will just keep getting worse and worse if something isn’t done soon. I think the strongest course of action would be limited US air strikes (1). It not only states that America isn’t afraid to step in, but shows Assad that he won’t go unpunished for his use of chemical weapons on his people. Last but not least, the third reason why America should intervene in Syria is because we can’t let what is going on in the Middle East be ignored. The bottom line is other nations have to fear us. It’s a joke that no country has stepped in yet especially after Syria’s President Assad issued chemical weapons on civilians, like I explained in my first point. We can’t ignore the death toll so far: 40,146 civilians have been killed, including more than 4,000 women and more than 5,800 children (3). That is unheard of. Not only that, but the number of people who have lost their homes or been forced to flee has reached 6.2 million (3). These numbers are staggeringly high. The military strikes on Syria will probably not end the civil war that is going on in their country, but it will definitely give a message to Assad and the people of Syria: America is not letting this issue go ignored and will not stand for the use of harmful chemical weapons against innocent civilians.
(1) http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_pop
(3) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/your-cheat-sheet-to-the-syrian-conflict.html
If I were a member of Congress I would vote for no war in Syria. The war will only bring the U.S. bad news.
A war in a foreign land is always a disadvantage to the American troops. Attacking Syria would be lose-lose situation for America because we are sending American soldiers into a war that would just accumulate in the number of deaths. U.S. troops sent over to Syria would sacrifice life and lose limbs. War is not the best solution for the Syrian citizens either (2).
Another point of argument is that America has no reason and right to launch military action in Syria. America should go to war only if its interests are at stake or if there is a evident threat. But the war in Syria has no evident threat to America (2). If the U.S. were to enter the war, it would just create another civil war in Syria. The interference of America would just make the situation worse and more chaotic because we would be launching a full scale war that involves the relations and politics of many countries. The U.S. also has no right to launch war on Syria. Under the International law, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it is only lawful to use force on another country if it’s for self defense or with the approval of the Security Council (1). The U.S. does not satisfy either of those two requirements.
The next thing to worry about is, what happens after America helps the rebels win to war? Well, it would create a power vacuum in Syria. But who will come into power? If the rebels were to come into power, that would create a new problem. Would the rebels will agree with American interests and have the same beliefs as us; or would it be like what happened with Saddam Hussein all over again? Will the rebels be willing to accept others and tolerate other religions in Syria if they win the war (2)? Who will come into power if not the rebel force?
Finally, it is not beneficial at all for America to enter war with Syria. Russia has warned the U.S.. They said that they had plans for if America decided to enact military actions against Syria. Russia has also protected Syria for the United Nations Security Council’s punitive action, too (4). They send vast amounts of weapons to Syria in support of Assad. Russia is an ally of Syria and a strong supporter of Assad because they depend on each other (3). No favorable result can come from war with Syria.
In conclusion, the U.S. should not get involved in the Syria conflict. It will only be bad for the U.S. and Syria.
1.http://www.rgj.com/article/20130908/OPED01/309080032/RGJ-editorial-Now-not-time-U-S-launch-an-attack-Syria
2.http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/04/sen-rand-paul-why-im-voting-no-on-syria/
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_pop
4.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/putin-warns-military-action-syria
Personally as a citizen of the United States I believe that the US should not become involved in the Syrian issue. Firstly the US intervention in Syria is simply not worthwhile, it is too costly and there is no need for us to directly engage Syria when we could resolve the matter in more peaceful and democratic way. In fact there is a plan in the making being carried out by Russia. This plan states that Syria hand over their chemical weapons to international powers that will disarm and ultimately completely destroy the weapons (1). The plan has major ups to it for instance it would keep the fighting in meeting rooms versus on a battle field which will hopefully save lives of American troops and civilians(1). This proposal however is not set in stone and is rather shaky at the moment. If US airstrikes and other bombardments were set forth on Syria the Russian plan could crash and burn and Syrian President Bashar Assad would keep using the weapons on his people, as well as US soldiers if they were sent into Syria’s boarders. Secondly we have built up a hefty Domestic agenda on our own soil we need to worry about. Political leaders on Capitol Hill have to worry about government funding levels, a proposed immigration overhaul, the farm bill, and increasing the federal debt limit(2). And of course we cannot forget the record deficit we have dug ourselves into over the last decade reaching a grand total of slightly over $16 trillion dollars, which does not actually exist in today’s world(3). These are just a handful of problems we need to tackle before we can add the Syria issue to our already overflowing plates. Priorities must come first we need to help ourselves in the US before we can invest more time and efforts into foreign affairs, if we can’t help ourselves how can we help others? My last point is if we were to go to war with Syria there would be definite and substantial costs. War is a costly affair as can be seen by the Iraq, Afghan wars. The projected cost by the time everything is said and done is going to be from $4 trillion to $6 trillion(4). When the US first started fighting back in 2001 it was supposed to be a short war however it is still going on today, we have to ask ourselves will that be the case with Syria? Collectively these are the main points I believe justify the US not interfering in Syria.
1.http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-russia-syria-proposal-world-leaders-20130910,0,1924506.story
2.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/syria-resolution-could-stall-congresss-work-on-divisive-domestic-issues/2013/09/07/f748a6b0-1735-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html
3.http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-03/total-us-debt-hits-1636954879960493-debt-ceiling-just-63-billion-away
4.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-28/world/38097452_1_iraq-price-tag-first-gulf-war-veterans
Kelvin wrote:
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against conducting military strikes on Syria. I believe that at first, President Obama intended to attack Syria because of their usage of chemical weapons against their own people but now, it has evolved into a larger issue where multiple governments of different countries have become involved in this situation. One of my main concerns for an attack on Syria is that if the United States is able to attack Syria without opening the door for rebels such as Al Qaeda to come into power. If this was to happen it would be like the war on Iraq all over again and quite frankly, the American people are tired of war. Because of President Obama's threat of attacking Syria, the defense ministers of Syria and Iran (one of Syria's allies) have both threatened to unleash attacks on Israel if they feel like Mr. Assad was in danger (Source 1). Since the United States has an alliance with Israel, if there was ever an attack on them, then the United States would send in soldiers to help Israel defend its borders. Even though Obama has said that he is only going to send missiles to attack Syria and not foot soldiers, it almost seems evident that there will be a need of sending in foot soldiers one way or another. Another reason why I believe that the United States should not get involved is because of the economic repercussions. Violence in Syria will effect global oil speculation and prices even though Syria isn't a major producer of oil. This increase in oil prices will effect all Americans at the gas pump. Also, if this conflict results in a war, it would put the United States in greater debt much like the Iraq war did, which was estimated to cost the United States $1 trillion (Source 2). As our economy is still recovering from the 2008 recession, spending on Syria would cause a set back to the United States economy. I also believe that at this time there are more issues here at home that are far more important than Syria. A quick and easy way of resolving this issue with Syria is to sign a deal put forth by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, which states that Assad regains power in Damascus, retains all of his military might, and is enlarged at the world stage where he will hand over his chemical weapons (Source 3). Before using force to obtain a goal, I believe that Obama should try to use peaceful diplomacy and try to negotiate and find common ground with Syria. This would be beneficial to both parties because no lives on the Syrian side would be lost and the United States could avoid repercussions of attacking Syria. In addition to avoiding such repercussions, Obama would also avoid negative publicity and opponents criticizing the United States of acting as the world police. To sum up, the situation in Syria with their chemical weapons should be handled without a U.S. missile strike, but rather peaceful negotiations.
Source 1- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Source 2- http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/world/syria-why-care
Source 3- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602423/u.s-dealing-with-putin-on-syria-carries-risks/
Posted by Kelvin L. at 9:26 PM
I don’t think that we should intervene in Syria. We still have domestic issues that we need to address for the citizens of our country. By intervening in Syria, it creates a larger focus on foreign issues rather than other important domestic issues, like our economy (1). Data based from polls show that many Americans do not think that we should intervene in Syria at this time based on past decisions like the Iraq war. In a CNN/ORC poll, about six in 10 say that the Iraq war was a mistake to get into and almost half of them have the same feelings towards Afghanistan (2). Another poll shows that seven in 10 believe that it is not the United States’ interest to intervene in Syria’s war and that having an airstrike would not accomplish significant American goals (2). Getting into Syria’s civil war could also create larger problems with Syria’s neighboring countries, which would threat the stability in the area (3). I think that in this issue we should be more cautious towards use of military intervention because it may damage the prospects for peace and to further destabilize the region (4). About $160 billion has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions more would be spent on Syria in its aftermath of U.S. intervention (5). The billions of dollars that could be spent on Syria should be spent for other domestic programs to benefit American citizens instead. Other domestic issues that we could be focusing on instead of Syria is the federal budget, immigration reform, and a selecting a new chairman of the Federal Reserve (7). Another reason why I do not think that we should intervene in Syria is the risks. The strength of Syria’s air force defense system may have been overstated, but it is still not very clear (6). The foreign air forces venturing into Syria’s air space can be in a great risk because Syria has reportedly has attack helicopters and aircrafts at their disposal (6). Syria also possesses a large number of missiles which also creates a threat to having them target American or NATO aircraft that might try to strike targets on grounds (6). The U.S. should stay out of Syria, or at the very least try to have some negotiations with Syria instead of conducting military strikes.
1.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/politics/obama-syria-poll/index.html
2.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/politics/obama-syria-speech-5-questions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
3.http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-how-did-we-get-here/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
4.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
5.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/aftermath-us-intervention-syria-would-cost-billion/
6.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/01/world/meast/syria-weapons-capability/?iref=obinsite
7.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-usa-obama-agenda-idUSBRE98A0Z920130911
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote no on US involvement in Syria. This is by no means an easy decision, but with the current state of chaos in Syria, direct involvement may not be the best idea, at least without further planning. For one, what would be the true impact of our proposed missile strike? Syria is already in turmoil and a few cruise missiles may only exacerbate the destruction and harm. 6.5 million Syrian civilians have already been made refugees, firing more missiles may raise that number, not to mention that the death tally of 100,000+ would rise.(2) While Assad would be inconvenienced by this strike, it is not clear that it would help in his defeat, or even that his defeat would end suffering in Syria. Some of the most powerful rebel groups fighting in Syria have ties to Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups. (3) It is unlikely that helping these groups would be in the United States best interest either.
Second, the reason for firing these missiles, condemning the use of chemical weapons, is a view held by many other countries, including Syrian allies Iran and Russia.(1) Would they not be in a better position to dissuade Syria than the US is? In fact, Russia has introduced a plan asking for Syria to give up their chemical weapons.(1) If Syria breaks this agreement, which is possible, I would support the use of force, but at this moment in time, Russia’s plan seems like a preferable option. The United States is not the only country that has taken a stand against chemical weapons, in fact, 98% of the world has by joining the Chemical Weapons Convention. (4) Why is it solely the United States’ responsibility to respond? It should be a worldwide effort to condemn the use of chemical weapons, not just the United States.
Third, the United States have been embroiled in wars in the Middle East that soldiers have just returned from. While the announced plan is to just fire cruise missiles as a “punishment” for the use of chemical weapons, the chance of the United States being pulled into another prolonged bloody war in the Middle East is a worrying idea. If the US gets involved there is a chance that it will be seen as the United States responsibility for whatever follows.
Works Cited:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/world/europe/as-obama-pauses-action-putin-takes-center-stage.html?ref=syria
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601055/syria-crisis-has-created-2-million-refugees-u.n-says/
3. http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-syria-fsa-alqaeda-20130912,0,25232.story
4. http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/member-states/status-of-participation-in-the-cwc/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I have very complicated views on this subject, but they basically boil down to this: we should primarily pursue the negotiations currently underway between Syria and Russia, keeping constant the threat of a military strike in order to encourage those negotiations to be productive. If the negotiations completely fail, military strikes should be undertaken in order to set a precedent for future use of chemical weaponry. The strikes, should they take place, should be limited to a one-time occurrence—serious, long-term involvement in the Syrian civil war would obviously and inarguably be a terrible idea (although, despite the fact that I am a huge advocate of the United States adopting a less aggressive foreign policy, as a general rule I don’t find the economy to be an especially compelling argument for [or against] foreign policy decisions. Just for the record. That’s a different discussion altogether, though, so I digress.)
The United States should (and plans to [2]) avoid a direct stance on the civil war but should take a definite and proactive stand against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons, which is not only unacceptable and immoral but also a violation of international regulations (4). (Although Syria technically did not accept these regulations, they have expressed their desire to do so, and either way [to my understanding], the countries who signed it also agreed to enforce it regardless of whether or not the offender also signed it. Which makes everyone else look terrible, but that’s not our problem.) The only way to effectively enforce such regulations is to be indiscriminate; if this instance goes unchecked, it's very likely to be taken as a flashing sign to other nations that they can make use of chemical weapons without fear of international retaliation (4). Therefore intervention of some kind is vital.
(continued)
This is the definitive moment when a precedent is going to be set about the consequences faced when a government uses chemical weapons. We do not want that precedent to be "nothing," especially if the lack of response is due to irrelevant things such as the economic or foreign policy status of the enforcer. This is not a secluded national conflict that only affects Syria; it is a global, international issue that deeply affects the entire world. As Obama said in his address, “America is not the world’s policeman … but when—with modest effort and risk—we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act” (1). Not only does he specifically mention the low effort and risk required for the potential strike (it would only cost an estimated ten million dollars and would not put any American lives at risk [3], another reason that economic arguments should be disregarded), but also—and arguably more importantly—calls to attention the fact that safety of the Syrian people is symbolic of worldwide safety that would result from a precedent of indiscriminate reactions to chemical weapon use.
The goal of any sort of retaliation is not, and never was, to take a permanent side in the conflict (2). We are not, and never were, planning to become involved in the civil war, and we are not by any means trying to topple the Syrian government (which would be an absolutely awful idea for an endless number of reasons). The goal is most certainly not to instigate any sort of war or to involve ourselves in the precarious governmental alliances in place in that area. In fact, the President is currently pursuing a diplomatic solution with Russia to encourage the impartiality of Syria’s allies, and Russia and Syria have been undergoing negotiations for some time (5). This is going extremely well—for example, the Syrian government has agreed to become part of the international agreement not to use chemical weapons in warfare (5)—and should be encouraged to continue to completion, as these negotiations effectively avoid the issues brought up in the U.N. and in the fact that technically Obama cannot authorize these strikes without the approval of Congress (4).
(Side note, though, that although the United Nations has ruled against an attack, there are regulations regarding the fact that Russia is influenced so strongly by its ties to Syria; in this case, the United States can disregard the decision [4]. Therefore technically the U.N. debacle is not that big of an issue.)
(still continued. Sorry; I'm verbose.)
Anyway, as I’ve said, the goal of any action is to set the precedent for indiscriminate response to the use of chemical weapons. Following that response, the plan is to become uninvolved as quickly and cleanly as possible, taking no position in any of the regional conflicts (2). If we handle this as tactfully as possible (promptly removing ourselves from the issue and reverting to neutrality, at least in action), Syria’s allies and the Syrian government itself will not have reasonable motivation to begin a war with us, especially as both Syria and its allies have recognized that the chemical weapons use was a breach of national regulation (2).
So, in summary: the best plan is to pursue the negotiations with Russia, because they seem to be going far better than any response we could get from military strikes. Actually going about securing Syria’s chemical weapons will likely prove to be difficult regardless, but Russia is putting pressure on Assad to make positive changes, and we should encourage that pressure. That encouragement needs to be in the form of a threat of force; these positive changes would not have happened without the possibility of a military strike. In addition, if the negotiations fail altogether, military strikes are the next best bet (although future presidents could use this case as precedent to ignore Congress). As long as the threat doesn’t actually come to fruition, however, neither the international system of law nor the Constitution’s division of powers will be eroded by the decisions made.
For this reason, if I were a member of Congress, I would vote to strategically delay the decision on whether or not to strike until the conclusion of Syria’s negotiations with Russia; at that point I would vote according to the success of those negotiations. (Actually, if I were a member of Congress, I would bicker and refuse to compromise on any issue regardless of legitimacy, because that’s how Congress rolls. But the above is what I think Congress should actually do. Note also that strategic, decisive, purposeful delays are different than delays due to inability to effectively function as a legislature.)
(This is it except for works cited; I promise!)
Works Cited:
1. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/11/chomsky_instead_of_illegal_threat_to
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57602098/obama-i-understand-american-people-arent-with-me-on-syria-strike/
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/09/10/how-much-would-a-strike-on-syria-cost-the-u-s/
4. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/09/obama_syria_and_international_law_the_russia_deal_could_be_a_legal_triumph.html
5. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/10/russia-un-syrian-chemical-weapons
(Now I promise I'm done!)
This comment has been removed by the author.
As an American citizen, I do not support America intervening in Syria. Looking back on history, some of our least supported wars, such as Vietnam, ended up being some of our longest war. Vietnam was a similar case with a civil war which we intervened on. Though never officially declared a war by congress, US troops were there from 1954 to 1973 (1). Both conflicts were not widely supported by the American population. When looking at all potential options for Syrian involvement, 62% believe the US should not try to lead solving foreign conflicts (2). 72% think we should not intervene to end dictatorships and start democracies, and 74% disagree with supplying arm to rebel militia (2). Which leaves us with one issue: what should the United States do?
I think we should just wait a little bit longer. One of the main arguments for going to war is that the United Nations believes the Syrian government launched an attack on its citizens by using chemical weapons against them in Damascus (3). However, current Syrian leader Assad has just accepted Russia’s advice and has agreed to turn over chemical weapons and submit the necessary documents for the Convention of Chemical Weapons, an international treaty for chemical weapons such as the Sarin gas used recently in Syria (3). If Assad follows through with his claim, this will remove our main concern for intervention. Syria is concerned about its relationship with Russia and does not want to become strained with one of its closest allies (3)
Lastly, I think we should not intervene with Syria and wait it out because of our troops. Current death tolls in Syria appear to be in the 100,000’s and still climbing (4). If we were to send our own troops into Syria right now, we could be certain of the loss of thousands of American lives. With the potential deal so close and the possibility of submitting to the CCW, sending troops in would only act as a catalyst for the situation and drive up the death toll. The loss of family members to me seems like a much bigger risk than waiting the 30 days for Assad to turn over his weapons. Waiting to see where everything falls is what I think to be the best option.
1. http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-military-strike.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/world/middleeast/united-states-and-russia-far-apart-as-kerry-arrives-in-geneva-for-syria-talks.html?ref=middleeast
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/death-toll-syria-100000_n_3652448.html
As an American citizen, especially a male who is approaching the drafting age, it is my personal opinion that the United States should not conduct military strikes in Syria. The risks far outweigh the benefits of such actions. First of all, wars cost money. Money that we don’t have. The current national debt is between 16 and 17 trillion dollars. (1) (For you visual people, that is twelve zeroes. 16,000,000,000,000). That is roughly $53,000 for every U.S. citizen. The still rising cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are almost 1.5 billion dollars (2), and that doesn’t count the cost of American soldiers lives. In addition, there has not been a clearly outlined plan from the Obama administration. What information has been given has been somewhat vague. (3) Some would argue that military strikes in Syria will not start a war, and the U.S would use limited military action to keep the peace. However, seven out of ten believe more conflicts would result from this and two-thirds believe that the U.S. would eventually send ground troops. (5) Albert Einstein once said, ‘You cannot serve two masters. You cannot prepare for peace and for war at the same time.” In the same way, we cannot use “limited military action” to prevent a war. We have tried this before. In both the Vietnam and Korean War, the United states tried to play policeman and ended up in the middle of the conflict. Let us not make the same mistakes as before. As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (4) Another reason that I believe that we should not take military actions is simply because a majority of the American population don’t think it’s worth it. Just under two-thirds of the people are opposed to such actions, but it isn’t the everyday citizens who get to vote.(5) Since America has far to many citizens to have a direct democracy, where everybody votes on every issue, we have a representative democracy. We give our government the power to make important decisions for us with the expectation that their decision will be the same as the American public’s. The majority of U.S. citizens are sick of conflict, so why pick another fight?
1.) http://www.usdebtclock.org/#
2.) http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
3.) http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html
4.) http://www.iep.utm.edu/santayan/
5.)http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/09/cnn-poll-why-its-not-worth-attacking-syria/?iref=allsearch
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote for President Obama's plan to perform strikes on Syria. I would vote for this plan, because the US -and I would argue the UN as well- needs to put action behind their stiff ban on the use of chemical weapons. If the intelligence that John Kerry had when he gave his presentation to Congress is true than I believe not striking Syria, or forcing Assad to step down, would set a precedent that the use of chemical weapons is alright, so long as they are given up for a temporary amount of time. That would be unacceptable. Assad used these weapons not to gain a victory in battle, but to affirm his control over the people and to show dominance over the rebel groups. By using chemical weapons, he was showing them that they can be hurt or killed by him at any time. This tactic will drive down moral of the rebels, which will weaken their resolve for fighting against him. It will also put fear in the hearts of the citizens, which will make them less likely to try and go up against the government. We have to remember that the people there don't have the best access to information like we do being well removed from the situation. To the people of Syria, it seems that they could be hit at anytime, anywhere. Assad has regained control and he will give up the weapons freely, because he no longer needs them. His message has already been sent and received. If the US or UN does not back up their ban with harsh uncompromising force than the ban will mean nothing to the international community. That is why I believe that we should strike Syria.
Work Cited:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602048/obama-russias-syria-offer-a-potentially-positive-development/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2013/09/12/stocks-thursday/2802767/
I would not vote in favor of military action in Syria. This is because I don’t believe direct US intervention would in any way improve the condition of Syria. There are few, if any, good options for the US besides stepping aside.
Regarding the chemical weapons violation, the only reasonable option that has been proposed so far that has widespread support from the international community is Russia’s proposal to demand that Syria place its chemical weapons under international control. On September 10, Syria agreed to give up and cease production of its chemical weapons. If, however, Syria does not comply and retains chemical weapons I would still not support US military action as it would not answer the question of “what happens to the chemical weapons”. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post explained that if the Assad regime does fall the weapons could end up in the hands of terrorist groups and disappear. The last thing anyone needs is these weapons in the hands of the Taliban or Al Qaeda. We must be certain the weapons are destroyed and air strikes would not give us this certainty.
Another problem with acting in Syria is that the US still does not know which, if any, other nations would support a campaign in Syria. Simon Tisdall and Josie Le Blond of The Guardian state that Francois Hollande of France is the only foreign supporter that the US has pushing for UN aid in military action against Syria. As for setting a precedent against using chemical weapons, the US would need UN support to show that the world, not just the US, is unwilling to accept such major violations of international law. We have to avoid setting the precedent that the US will always act as a policing force for the world.
If anyone needs evidence to be convinced that the US shouldn’t get involved with Syria, they can just look at the past few decades. The US has had a less than ideal record in dealing with conflict in the Middle East and it would be rather foolish to take on any new fights. While the US has been able to aid in the overthrow of several (less than ideal) leaders throughout the region (Gaddafi, Hussein, etc), the resulting chaos has always proved to bring little or no improvement to prior conditions. You can look at Egypt or Libya to see that removing an oppressive government does not necessarily lead to peace and democracy.
The fact remains that, no matter what people in the United States or the UN decide to do about Syria, more people are going to be killed. If the Assad regime does decide to give up its chemical weapons to appease the international community, they can still kill tens of thousands of their own people through more acceptable methods. There are certainly no guarantees of peace in Syria’s near future, either with or without the intervention of other nations. Even if a case can be made on moral grounds that the US should get involved it is important to remain practical; before saying we need to take action we need to ask if it would even help. In my opinion, the US is not able to help settle the violence in Syria and so should not become involved in the chaos and leave the policing to the UN.
1.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/10-things-that-could-go-very-wrong-if-we-attack-syria/
2.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-john-kerry
3.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
4.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE9880HY20130911
Military action in Syria is crucial to maintaining the international ban on chemical weapons and chemical warfare. During his speech addressing the country on this issue, President Obama stated that refraining from taking action in Syria would send a message to other tyrants, basically saying that the United States would sit back and watch if they decided to pursue similar methods of dealing with rebellious citizens. Many Americans would argue that the Russian’s plan to deal with Assad and his weapons is enough to end the conflict, but the fact of the matter is that if not dealt with through force, Assad will continue to execute masses of his own people, including women and children. People seem believe that if Assad is no longer in possession of these weapons, he will stop the violence against his people, but this is not the case; he will simply find other means of massacring innocent people. That is why the strike will still be necessary if Assad decides to hand over his weapons to the United Nations for disposal. It will be a preemptive strike against any future violence, and that may not be such a terrible thing.
However, I do see why so many people are opposed to this strike. The main concern with the United States intervening in Syria is that Assad and his government will retaliate and start another war. No one in America wants that. But, Obama has stated time, and time again that no American soldiers will be sent to Syria to fight this conflict. He recognizes how hard he had to work during his first term, and into his second term, to bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and he isn’t willing to risk more American lives for something that can be easily taken care of by machines. It is also my strong belief that Assad would not even chance retaliation. To him, this entire situation is about power and he would not do anything to jeopardize his current position as President of Syria. He knows, as well as every other country does, that starting an altercation with the United States will only result in his own demise. Not only do we have the United Nations behind us, but we also have the superior military force, even without our allies’ help. Worst-case scenario is that Assad chooses to ignore our warning attack and continues to terrorize the people of his country. If this happens, then the United Nations will have to come up with another way to deal with Assad, but until then, this option seems like the most reasonable.
http://www.nytimes.come/video/2013/09/10/us/politics/100000002435965/obama-addresses-the-nation-on-syria.html
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote no to authorize the president’s plan to conduct military strikes on Syria. I do not believe that the United States has to get involved every time there is violence in the Middle East. Nor do we, as a nation, have to follow every time the president asks for help, this is a democracy. First of all, the weapons handover seems like a good alternative to getting involved in another war so soon after leaving Iraq (Guardian). It would show that chemical weapons were not allowed as a form of warfare, while also not getting tangled up into another long war. Speaking of that long war, Iran is allied with Syria, and will at least be conflicted over how to respond to US strikes on Syria (NyTimes). There is also the worry that if the United States does attack Syria, and does not take advantage of the weapons handover deal, that Syria will begin to use chemical weapons on us or our allies (Cnn). The Middle East needs less violence to create stable governments, U.S. meddling will only make things worse.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/world/middleeast/drawing-a-line-on-syria-us-eyes-iran-talks.html?_r=0
2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/us-syria-russian-chemical-weapons-handover
3. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
If I were a member of Congress I would vote no to military strikes in Syria. While I agree that what is happening in Syria is atrocious, horrible things happen all around the world and try as we might we cannot always stop them. We have not had a good record intervening in other countries, even with good intentions. Take the Iraqi war and Afghanistan, these wars just added to anti-American sentiment and dragged on. They were not effective in reaching our goals. We are already stretched thin from wars throughout the Middle East; we do not have to resources to enter another one. This relates to another point of why we should not intervene in Syria, we need to worry about our own country first. We ourselves are facing domestic problems that needed to be solved. Our priority should be to strengthen our country. We have put the Syrian conflict above other important domestic issues. Instead of focusing on pressing national issues like immigration, food stamps, and the federal debt, Congress is looking at Syria. This has potential for political gridlock and then nothing will get done (1). I especially have concern for the national debt. I do not see room in our budget to finance another war; we are already trillions of dollars in debt. Another reason not to take military action against Syria is there is a possibility we could solve this diplomatically. Recently Russia has given the persuaded Syria to proceed amicably. They have brokered a deal where in Syria will place its chemical weapons under international control (2). Russia and the US have begun talks dealing with the plan on securing and disposing of the chemical weapons. Assad , the ruler of Syria, has even publicly announced that he will follow the Russian disposal plan and apply for Syria’s membership into the International Convention on Chemical Weapons. This would ban the use, manufacture, and stockpiling of chemical weapons. The UN has confirmed that they have received the application (3). Even getting Assad to admit possessing chemical weapons has been a big step. Some are skeptical that Assad will not keep his word, but we should still try a diplomatic solution before military intervention. If the talks work, countless American soldiers could be kept safe. The whole uproar about the conflict in Syria has been that Assad used chemical weapons on his people. Negotiations seem to leading towards these chemical weapons being destroyed, which I would view as a victory. Obama has even said, all though he is a proponent of intervention, that he is “hopeful” that the Russian and US talks “can yield a concrete result” (2). My final reason for staying out Syria is the will of the American people. According to recent polls 64% of the American people think military strikes in Syria are unnecessary for national credibility or security. 74% of Americans think airstrikes against Syria unwise. Recently disapproval of the way Obama is handling foreign policy has gone up, edging over 50% of the American people (4). These numbers show that the people do not want to go to war. Our country is based on the belief that all actions are made for the people and approved by them. We don’t always agree on everything, but if a majority of the people agree that’s important, and they are agreeing against military action. In conclusion we, the US, should not conduct military strikes on Syria.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/syria-resolution-could-stall-congresss-work-on-divisive-domestic-issues/2013/09/07/f748a6b0-1735-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/world/middleeast/united-states-and-russia-far-apart-as-kerry-arrives-in-geneva-for-syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
(4) http://reason.com/poll/2013/09/10/poll-64-percent-say-airstrikes-against-s
I would vote yes to authorize the President's plan to conduct a military strike on Syria, should the current diplomatic option fail. I vote yes but not without some reservations and requirements. I do not wish to see American troops on the ground fighting in Syria, and the military action should only take place after the diplomatic path we are currently on is no longer an option. Should Syria give up its stockpile of chemical weapons to international control in a reasonable amount of time, given that most of the chemical weapons are held in regions that are in the center of the civil war, I would not approve of the military strike. That being said, I support the military strike in Syria. One reason is that the world needs to know that the use of chemical weapons is not acceptable. Unfortunately, the world has deemed certain ways of killing people more acceptable than others. Chemical weapons were banned because the harm they inflict is always slow and painful, unlike that of a bullet or bomb, which can kill quickly (1). This makes what makes the Assad regime's decision to use chemical weapons even more appalling. This is a huge reason why there needs to be consequences. Another reason I support the President's plan to conduct a military strike on Syria is because there needs to be a deterrent for others against using chemical weapons. Elementary school children get the concept of actions and consequences. If someone throws a bottle of glue at another student and they get in trouble for it, the perpetrator, along with the rest of the class watching, will know not to throw glue. As Obama said in his address on Syria Tuesday, September 10th, if there is no reason to fear negative consequences for using chemical weapons, then other tyrants and dictators will not hesitate to reemploy the use of poisonous gases in wars to come (2). This would put future soldiers at risk, not only from gun-fire, but now from deadly chemical weapons. My final reason for voting yes is that appeasement never works. The world looked the other way and gave Hitler what he wanted in the years leading up to World War II, hoping he would go no further. A similar thing happened with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Now we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and we wish we would have seen the signs and done something earlier. The Assad regime will get away with the use of chemical weapons if the United States turns a blind eye to their actions. We now have the opportunity to enforce the ban of chemical weapons to deter future attacks on innocent lives. President Bashar al-Assad used banned chemical weapons on his own people, killing more than 1,400 innocent people (3). The rest of the world needs to be reminded that international laws need to be followed.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-explainer/index.html
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html
(3) http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html
I think it would be in our best interest to refrain from launching strikes against Syria. Although the United States is a considerably powerful nation, it is not the US' duty to take control of the issue of chemical warfare being used by the Syrian government. Since the Syrian government's actions go against international codes, such as the the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, the United Nations should take measures to ensure that the inhumane warfare in Syria is stopped. Previously, it seemed that the UN would never be do anything about the chemical warfare used in Syria due to the votes cast by Russia and China, but as of last Thursday, US-Russia talks have confirmed that Russia is willing to diplomatically combat this situation and remove chemical weapons from Syria (1). However, the process the Russian foreign minister proposed at the talks would be laborious, possibly very dangerous, and drawn out over a period of months (1). Additionally, the Assad regime has promised to give up its chemical weapons, but Secretary of State John Kerry doubts the Syrian government's trustworthiness (2). This kind of situation may need immediate action, especially if the welfare of Syrian civilians, and sanctity of international laws, is at stake. The only thing the US can directly do at this point is to continue the talks with Russia and Syria. However, this will prove difficult, because the General Idriss, the leader of the Free Syrian Army, has rejected Russia's proposal and instead insists that the Assad regime should have to face international courts (3).
In addition, because the of the weapons that the CIA has sent to Syrian rebels, it makes it very difficult for the US to back out of interfering in the civil war. Obama promised in his speech on Tuesday that there will be no "boots on the ground" (1). However, if we do end up launching strikes against Syria, it seems somewhat inevitable that we also end up deploying troops in Syria to fight for the rebel cause. In recent years, relations between the US and the Middle East have been increasingly tense; the ongoing war on terror has made relations even worse. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the percentage of rebel fighters in Syria who are Islamic extremists could be anywhere between 15 and 25 percent (2). This again raises the question of if the US is supporting the right side, and if it is possible to disregard religious organizations' views for the moment. Also, the Syrian government has stated that it will not begin the process of getting rid of chemical weapons until the weapons the CIA is sending to the rebel forces are under international control (2). This provides another angle from which the issue has become even more complicated.
(cont'd)
(cont'd from first post)
However, I do think that the US can definitely do something to help the situation in Syria. In addition to sending weapons to Syrian rebels, the US is sending nonlethal aid (2), which the US actually promised to send about a year ago (4). This type of aid includes medical supplies, armor, communications equipment, etc (4). While it is important to aid those who are directly involved in the conflict, it is equally important that the US provide aid to those whose lives have been uprooted by the fighting as well. Recently the German government has announced that it will accept 5000 Syrian refugees, who will begin relocating to Germany for a period of at most two years starting early November (3). While the US has allotted for at most 70,000 Syrian refugees in its program, so far this fiscal year, only 33 have been admitted (5). Thus to provide for the needs of the refugees, the US must speed up the expediting process in admitting these refugees (5). Through humanitarian aid, not launching strikes against Syria, and continuing peace talks with Russia and hopefully the Syrian government and rebel leaders as well, the US can maintain its status as a mediator in world affairs without risking increasing tension with the Middle East.
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/world/middleeast/united-states-and-russia-far-apart-as-kerry-arrives-in-geneva-for-syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
(3) http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/group-syrian-refugees-leaves-germany-20221641
(4) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/02/what_exactly_is_nonlethal_aid
(5) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-12/u-s-can-take-in-more-than-33-syrian-refugees.html
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against missile attacks on Syria. There are no good options when approaching this subject due to the many layers of problems those involved are looking at. From the United States’ standpoint, we should not attack Syria. The biggest problem that I saw when approaching this question was one of who exactly used the chemical weapons for what purposes. The Syrian government might not have launched the attacks on the rebels, the rebels themselves might have caused the attacks to invoke an attack on the Syrian government and give them more power in their civil war. A couple of hostages of the rebel side even report they heard rebels discussing the use of chemical weapons. (1) The rebels are not one strong force against the government but several different uprisings fighting for their own reasons. Attacking the Assad regime might cause a dangerous power vacuum in the Middle East, a sight they have seen before. The power crisis might give way to an extremist organization. Making decisions like attacking Syria might bring in more large nations like Russia into the problem. Vladimir Putin has advised strongly against the missile attacks due to the confusion over the source of the chemical weapons. (2) This might put even more strain on the relationship between the United States and the countries allied with the Syrian government. The attack on Syria might even be illegal under international law. An attack must be made in self-defense or approved by the United Nations Security Council. (3) An attack would also strain relationships between the United States and the UN. The chemical attacks are still not allowed by the laws of war. Taking violent action might not be the right way to approach this subject but a more peaceful approach would be more acceptable in my mind. The massive amount of refugees from war are putting an enormous strain on the countries surrounding Syria. The United States should put more effort than they have toward helping those affected by war. America has now contributes more than $1 billion in aid to Syrian refugees, meeting their food, water, and shelter needs but they need more. (4) Many people in these camps are facing mental trauma caused by the two year civil war. More personalized help will reflect well on the United States and will help directly with the war torn civilians caught in the middle of this civil war without causing more unnecessary death.
(1) http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/09/10/freed-hostages-reveal-information-on-chemical-attacks-in-syria
(2)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/putin-warns-us-not-to-attack-syria
(3)
http://www.rgj.com/article/20130908/OPED01/309080032/RGJ-editorial-Now-not-time-U-S-launch-an-attack-Syria?nclick_check=1
(4)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/three-big-ways-the-u-s-could-help-syrians-without-using-the-military/
Regarding the recent conflict in Syria, I strongly believe that the United States government should vote against using military interference. My primary reason comes from my complete belief in the fact that you simply cannot fight violence with violence because it only adds more death and destruction. The military options that the government have put forward are all unwise. The first option that was suggested was to send arms to the rebels, in order to aid them against their fight against the tyrannical government of Syria. But even if this were to cause Assad to fall from power, it would lead to an immeasurable amount of chaos, fighting, and possibly even a second civil war in the nation (1). In addition, the other possibility of launching airstrikes on Syria could start yet another long conflict for the United States to deal with. As we already struggle with numerous internal domestic issues, I find it hard to understand how anyone could think that getting ourselves involved in yet another dilemma would be the most wise decision for the United States. While some suggest that the U.S. embark on a ground invasion into Syria, this would only lead to a higher number of deaths and a significant increase in anti-Americanism in the region.
The government's latest possible plan of action occurred after a comment from Senator John Kerry, who claimed that President Assad of Syria could avert a military strike from the United States if he were to turn over the nation's chemical weapons stockpile within the week (2). Although most Americans regarded this with skepticism, Russia soon after proposed bringing Syria's chemical weapons under international control. I see this as being an extremely smart plan of action for the United States government to pursue, because if the plan succeeds, there will be no need for a military strike from the United States (2). President Assad earlier appeared on Russian television to confirm that Syria's chemical weapons would indeed be placed under international control, but insisted that the "U.S. threats did not influence the decision" (3). Therefore, there was no need for us to even consider invading Syria in the first place, because they are on the path to solving the conflict without us.
(continued)
(continued)
I feel as if the main reason that pro military action Americans want the government to vote for getting the United States militarily involved in Syria comes from an appeal to humanity. I understand that more than 100,000 people have died in the war, including innocent children (2). Though I truly do feel sorry for the innocent lives that have been taken, I have no doubt in my mind that a course of military action from the United States would only cause more death and destruction. If it is an appeal to humanity that is causing people to believe that military action is the only way, I urge them to realize that instead of causing more chaos through the use of our military, one could just donate to one of the large number of charities that are helping Syrians. Among these are Doctors Without Borders, Hand in Hand for Syria, and Mercy USA (2). Basically, there are other ways to help a situation other than being a source of conflict. The U.S. seems to always desire getting involved in things that are not our business, especially when chemical and nuclear weapons are involved (1). Therefore, I think that a significant amount of pro-military action Americans want to take action specifically to gain control of the chemical weapons. But in contrast to what most people believe, the number of people who have been killed by these weapons amounts to less than 2% of the total number of people who have died in the war. The majority of these deaths have been caused by weapons such as missiles and firearms (2). Overall, I strongly believe that the United States should vote not to intervene in Syria, as it is not in our best interest.
Works Cited:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-russian-prestige-on-line-as-syria-focus-shifts-from-military-might-to-diplomacy/2013/09/11/a6b5e77e-1b4c-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/parsing-syria-developments-ahead-of-obamas-address.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24072799
As an American, I do think that our congress should allow the president to attack Syria. The Syrian government is brutal and needs to be ousted, and we can help the rebels by leveling the playing field on a technological level and giving them a weaker government to fight against. Our government is working the way it should, Obama has the right to attack immediately as Commander in Chief, but wants the opinion of the legislature before he goes into a war. The Syrian government were the first to start to bloodshed, by firing on peaceful protestors during the arab spring on March 15, 2011(wikipedia). We also know that our arch enemy Iran has also been sending supplies to Assad's regime. The sarin gas itself was shipped from Iraq by Saddam Hussein just before we attacked Iraq. By stopping these shipments, we could undermine Iranian power in the Middle East, as well as help the Free Syrian Army. Also, if Assad wins he could give sarin gas to the terrorist group Hezbollah as a reward. They then would have WMDs that they could use against our biggest ally in the region, Israel. If our military goes in with a solid gameplan, the military could seize the stores and prevent the more unstable groups pretending to side with the Free Syrian Army from gaining the weapons for themselves. Obama and congress have said that there would not be an invasion of Syria. Limiting a military presence would make it so that the costs would go down and the war would not be prolonged, like the Iraq war was, it could be as short and inexpensive as the first Gulf War. The cost of that war was only 61 billion dollars (cornell), that is not much for a war. Sarin gas, though cleaner than other gases, still causes a brutal death. It would be the equivalent of bleeding out slowly without receiving medical help. As for the gas incident itself, sources from many different countries conclude that the Assad regime was using the weapons as an easy way to clear out a rebel stronghold in Ghouta, a suburb of the capitol Damascus on August 21, 2013(wikipedia). Not responding to this threat would be giving a free reign to all dictators and show that our democrat president isn't willing to make the hard decisions. The U.N. creating sanctions will not help the rebel’s cause as much as force will. It is in the nation's best interest to go into the Middle East once again, those people need help from a stronger power, and the US is the last remaining superpower to help them out. Because of the Assad regime’s humanitarian crimes, the dangers of sarin gas, and the people siding with Assad, it would be the right thing to do. Congress should authorize the strike on Syria, not for national security, but for the people of Syria who need our help.
Works Cited:
The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/russia-west-gas-attack-syria
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21797661
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/health/sarin-fast-facts
Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/list/peaceful-protests-led-to-100-000-dead-syrians
PS It was really hard to be the devil’s advocate and write all of this. I can’t believe some people actually think this way in the country. If you know me you know this is almost the opposite of what I believe. Have fun dissing me. Love, Calvin.
The situation in Syria is a very frustrating one. As a human race, it is within our nature to want to reach out and protect other peoples from tyrants such as President Assad. However, at what price are we willing to do this? In a perfect world, President Obama would fly to Syria, have a respectable sit down conversation with Assad, perhaps have some coffee, and show him that using chemical weapons on his own people is not in his best interests. However, the world we live in is far from perfect, and I doubt even a cappuccino could calm this horrendous situation. Because of our lack of a simple world and our complicated war strategies, I do not believe that military intervention is within our best interests.
If we had reacted to the use of chemical weapons immediately, perhaps a peace meeting could have been an option. Since we were unable to do so, it seems that our only two options are attacking (and possibly causing even more damage to the country) or leaving it alone and seeing if the innocent people of Syria can manage. As NPR eloquently stated “Which Bad Syria Option Do You Prefer?” they make it very obvious that no matter what we do, something will go wrong. If we attempt to do something other than launch a military attack, such increase our aid or negotiate a peace treaty, there are still ambiguous factors to consider such as our economy (2). In case you haven’t noticed, our economy is not in tip-top shape. Sending money to those in need seems like a very peaceful way to handle this situation, which is why many people support it, but it would be using money we do not have (2). This would inevitably cause unrest within the citizens of America, and it would be like the Vietnam War all over again. Another option that has been discussed is supplying arms to those in Syria (2 and 3). Personally, I think this is the worst option yet. The chances of those weapons being used on the people instead of for the people are astronomical and I only see that choice furthering the destruction.
By intervening in Syria, the bad outweighs the good. The probability of us killing more innocent civilians is much higher than us helping them. Hypothetically, if Congress did consent to the attack, Obama would (hopefully) understand that the safety of the people is our priority, but even then it is possible that without forceful attacks, Syria would come out on top and be seen as a stronger world power (4). This situation is highly undesirable since for some reason we are still in “Cold War mode” with Russia, who is one of Syria’s closest allies. We do not want to appear weak to them and possibly have them feel confident enough to attack us, thus causing a much larger war than intended.
With the recent turn of events involving Syria giving up its chemical weapons after encouragement from Russia, I believe this furthers us from having a logical reason to attack (1). However, this does not mean that the people of Syria are safe. Even if Hitler was unable to use gas chambers, that does not mean 6 million Jews would have survived. Powerful leaders like Assad always have options, and if we believe that him giving up the chemical weapons means that he is admitting defeat, we are fooling ourselves. We cannot turn our heads away like we did in World War II: The Syrian people need to be kept in our best interests, and if this means waiting and watching for President Assad to make another move, then I am in full support of that.
The odds seem to be stacked against our intervention in Syria, and I have to agree. It is a terrible situation that I hope someday will never be an issue, but for now I believe that carefully observing the country and ensuring it does not advance to any form of genocide is our best option. Although there is no definite end to the war in sight, I hope Congress decides to vote no on military intervention in Syria.
(1) The Guardian- Syria will give up control of chemical weapons http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/bashar-al-assad-syria-chemical-weapons
(2) NPR - which bad Syria option do you prefer? http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
(3) Other option besides military action http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2013/09/09/US-Intervention-in-Syria-Other-options-besides-military-action/PC-1581378736372/
(4) 10 things that could go wrong http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/10-things-that-could-go-very-wrong-if-we-attack-syria/
If I were a member of Congress I would vote no on the President's proposition to bomb Syria. This is due to, amongst other reasons, the fact there is no win (1). This would not help any of the people in Syria to bomb them, further throwing their country into chaos, but rather provide as yet another example of the US negatively sticking their metaphorical nose in other people's business, screwing over not only themselves but a multitude of other countries. I would look towards more civil means of resolving some of the major issues, like taking away Syria's chemical stockpile and putting it under international control, like Secretary of State John Kerry suggested and Russia is leaning towards (2). I would also look to aid for countries like Jordan who have had to deal with the overload of refugees from Syria, as those are the real victims here, and really need the help and concentration (3). In this way America helps the people that really need it without pushing their own political philosophy and agenda on Syria as a whole.
1)http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/judson-phillips-cold-hard-truth/2013/aug/24/barack-obamas-perfect-war/
2)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24053918
3)http://www.france24.com/en/20130912-jordan-appeals-aid-cope-with-syrian-refugees
In response to the president’s plan to conduct military strikes in Syria, I firmly believe the United States government should vote no. I believe intervention in Syria would be not only ineffective and inconclusive but also unnecessarily violent. U.S. citizens are strongly opposed to intervention in Syria. According to a CNN poll, 7 out of 10 Americans believe that a military strike would not achieve significant American goals and that intervention in Syria goes against national interest (3). With the current economic status, the United States would be wasting money on a military strike that would have little impact on Syria’s use of chemical weapons and the civil war as a whole (4). The government should focus on domestic issues rather than involving the military in another lengthy and unnecessary conflict. The government’s plan to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons using the strike has little practical reasoning (4). While President Obama’s plan may be symbolic, it is not militarily effective (4). Thus, such violence is unwarranted and wasteful. Also, the military strike’s symbolic message is questionable as it suggests that the United States condones Assad’s brutal killings using normal weapons and that we will only interfere when chemical weapons are used (1). Also, if the United States’ aim is to prevent the violence occurring in Syria, getting involved would only cause more turmoil and senseless killing. Military intervention would trigger further escalation of the situation to war (2). Thus, intervention intended to protect civilians would ultimately endanger Syrian citizens. The United States intervention in Syria is not only unwise, but also unwanted (4). According to Steven Strauss of the Business Insider, “Opinion polls in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan show a consistently unfavorable view of our intervention in Iraq” (4). Intervention in Syria would receive the same disdain from the Middle East. A military strike would be an unwelcome inciting incident for further violence in the already unstable Middle East.
In my opinion, we should continue negotiations with Russia and Syria regarding Syria handing over their chemical weapons to the UN (5). Such a solution would prevent the United States from engaging in another costly and wasteful war by handling the situation peacefully. Violence will not be effective in regard to the civil war as Assad said “When we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack, and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists, then we will believe that the necessary processes can be finalized,” (5). Such action would send a clear message of the consequences for future use of chemical weapons. In addition, working with the UN would give the United States some support in our endeavor to resolve the Syrian conflict (5). While President Obama’s military strike would cause further violence and turmoil, working on negotiations with Russia and Syria offers some hope for resolution and future peace
1) .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/12/no-obama-did-not-just-confer-international-legitimacy-on-assad/
2) http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-reasons-we-should-be-slow-to-militarily-intervene-in-syria-2012-6b
3) http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html
4) http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130904/us-aims-psychological-effect-strikes-syria
5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kerry-russian-delegation-in-geneva-to-explore-syrian-deal-to-eliminate-chemical-weapons/2013/09/12/891c6ca8-1b9a-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against military action in Syria. In Syria, the President, although not confirmed yet, probably used chemical weapons on the people of a Damascus suburb (4). To me, this action does not immediately provoke military involvement. Yes, the attack killed 1,000+ people, but the total deaths of the civil war in Syria are now surpassing 100,000 (4). Obama said that the deaths of those killed in the gas attacks were an “assault against humanity”, but what about the others that were killed (2)? I do not see how one chemical attack can change a brutal civil war from being humane into something terrible overnight, even if an international law was broken. I also oppose the strategy that Obama proposed employing in a potential Syria attack. Obama said that the attack on Syria was to be “limited in duration and scope” (2). I am not an expert military strategist, but telling the enemy beforehand that the attack on them will be limited and short lived does not seem like a means of intimidation. If Obama wishes to set a precedent, he should either attack, or not at all. Even John McCain and Lindsey Graham, senators who want intervention in Syria, said that they oppose Obama’s plan because they “cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield” (1). Besides the military strategy, the very fact that we will be fighting on the side of the rebels is questionable. The most organized section of the opposition to President Assad is called Al-Nusra, and has recently sworn allegiance to the terrorist group Al-Qaeda (3). I do not think that we should, under any circumstances, support Al-Qaeda or arm them with weapons, as they are currently fighting a war against us. Along with all of these circumstances is the problem of international attention. Because so many countries have taken interest in the crisis in Syria, and Russia and China have even come out on Assad’s side, launching missiles at Assad’s armies would heighten international tension and possibly ignite a full scale war that we would be unable to afford (5). Instead of military action, I would propose that aid to refugees be pursued, seeing as both sides of Syria’s civil war seem to be on the “bad” side.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/text-of-president-obamas-remarks-on-syria.html
3.http://www.policymic.com/articles/42317/who-are-the-syrian-rebels-a-basic-intelligence-briefing-on-the-assad-resistance
4.http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-31/world/41642428_1_chemical-weapons-syria-james-martin-center
5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24072799
I do not think that the United States should attack Syria for a number of reasons. So far there is a lack of concrete evidence linking Assad to last month’s chemical weapon attack (2). Officials say that rebels would not have been capable of an attack of that size and degree; however, they have yet to present indisputable evidence to prove that it was entirely under Assad’s command (2). White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough maintains that the evidence passes a “common sense test” but admits that there is not “irrefutable, beyond-a-doubt evidence” to justify military intervention (2). While few question that the attack is the Assad regime’s responsibility, this lack of concrete evidence brings back memories of the build-up to the war in Iraq ten years ago when intelligence that later proved to be false led officials to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, making officials reluctant to take action without certain proof (1).
The Russian arms initiative has presented an opportunity for diplomacy that would be shattered by the use of military force right now. Many see the initiative as a delay created by Russia to help Syria, but on Tuesday Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem announced that Syria is “ready to inform about the location of chemical weapons, halt the production of chemical weapons, and show these objects to representatives of Russia, other states, and the United Nations” (4,3). The UN resolution drafted by France that would obligate Assad to reveal the extent of Syria’s chemical weapon program, establish international controls over the stock, and call for periodic inspections of the disarming process would be filed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, allowing the Security Council to authorize the use of force if Assad does not comply (4). I think it may be necessary to keep the threat of military action on Syria for now so that the Assad regime understands the seriousness of the situation, but it should be an absolute last resort after cutting off relations and communication and using other non-violent punishments only if Assad’s administration agrees to the resolution and then blatantly disregards the commitment .
Other risks involved with executing strikes in Syria make me opposed to the idea. Civilian casualties would be unavoidable with the use of cruise missiles as originally planned by the Obama administration (5). Some argue that the civil war has already claimed thousands of lives and that military action is necessary to prevent more Syrians from being killed; however, the intent of the strikes would not be to intervene in the war but to show Assad that his chemical weapon violation did not go unnoticed by the international community. To me, any action by an outside nation that would injure civilians seems backwards. Furthermore, any kind of military intervention would add to anti-American sentiment held by many groups in the Middle East, strengthening extremist groups fueled by hatred for Western countries (6). Strikes would also threaten the United States’ already fragile relationship with Iran (6). Experts view this as an opportunity to cooperate and build relations with the nation, which has spoken out in opposition to outside forces taking military action, so if the U.S. went ahead with strikes it would be a major setback in relations between the two countries and potentially lead to violent responses from other nations in the area as well (6). Finally, many officials have remained reluctant because of the chance of becoming involved in a humanitarian battle in Syria despite the current focus on punishing the Assad regime for the use of chemical weapons (6). The U.S. is known for its history of meddling in foreign affairs, and though it is important that we stand up for human rights and international law, I believe that we should focus our resources on domestic issues.
I believe that the U.S should intervene in Syria. I would vote yes for 3 main reasons. My first reason is chemical warfare was banned after WWI and it is a crime against humanity. President Bashar al-Assad is using chemical weapons against civilians. Many of these civilians are innocent people such as children. This uprising in Syria is becoming more violent by the day. The more time we let pass, the worse the situation will get (1). The death toll in Syria is past 7,000 civilians, and the Syrian people are begging for assistance (2). Men, women, and children are being subjected to indiscriminate artillery bombardment, sniper fire, and tanks in the streets (3). Syria is headed toward a large-scale civil war. The Obama administration has yet to take action. This comes as a surprise to many of us because the number of people killed by Assad’s forces is five times what is was in Libya in 2011, when Obama declared that armed intervention against Muammar Qadhafi (3). My second reason is Assad is not alone. Iran and Hezbollah have been providing intelligence, and on some accounts, weapons, and other forces (4). Also, Russia is supporting Syria by providing many weapons. We need to intervene before these forces form against the U.S (4). Until outside forces get Assad to stop, he will continue their murderous rampage. President Obama said he wanted a “limited” attack on Syria’s military (1). Negotiations have failed. I believe the strongest course of action would be limited U.S air strikes. This will show Assad that his actions are inhumane and will not go without punishment. We have no choice, but to intervene. My final reason for voting yes is because this situation in Syria cannot be ignored (4). A large-scale civil war is in the uprising and we are not doing anything yet. Also, the death toll keeps rising as well. Chemical warfare is a crime against humanity and Assad needs to be stop. I believe the U.S should intervene in Syria immediately.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
http://projects.nytimes.com/live-dashboard/syria
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24053918
I personally believe that the U.S. should not authorize military strikes on Syria. There are other options to consider that would help Syria without the U.S. advancing into another war, but being completely inactive during this time of crisis would be sending the wrong message. A major reason to avoid a military strike on Syria is that an attack on Syria could force the situation to escalate to a much higher degree than it is now. Vladimir Putin wrote, “The potential strike by the U.S. against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict beyond Syria’s borders.” [1] Putin has a very valid point in that if the U.S. attacks Syria there would be consequences that would question if killing more innocent people was a good way to handle the situation, intentional or not it still will result in the same. Another reason I believe we don’t have to use military force is that Syria seems to be cooperating without the need of violence, such as with Russia. The Syrian president has said that Syria will cooperate only if the U.S. halts its threats of military action. The Syrian president has also recently said that it will hand over all of the chemical weapons they possess to be placed under international supervision because of Russia’s calm proposals rather than the U.S.’s hostile attempt toward a military strike [2]. This shows that Violence and more death is not necessary in dealing with the situation and that there is an easier way to handle the problem we now face.
[1] Reuters, . "Putin says U.S. strike on Syria could escalate conflict." Chicago Tribune 9 11 2013, n. pag. Web. 12 Sep. 2013. .
[2] Hjelmgaard, kim, and Doug Stanglin. "Assad: Syria will sign chemical arms treaty." USA Today 9 12 2013, n. pag. Web. 12 Sep. 2013. .
If I were a member of Congress, I would vote no to giving the president the authority to conduct military strikes on Syria. I am very torn when it comes to making this decision. I cannot help but draw comparisons to the United State’s neutrality policy during World War II, and the way in which the tide of the war would have changed had we stepped in sooner. However, Syria is an entirely different situation. My first reason for having hesitation with the air strikes is that civilians would die in our air strikes. The question I bring to the table is how we can justify killing innocent people because a dictator killed innocent people in a “worse” way. I understand that Syria and the rest of the world signed the Geneva Protocol in 1925, which banned the use of chemical weapons (1). I understand that dying by chemical weapons is especially heinous and attacks the lungs and eyes and leaves victims either dead or severely crippled. However, The United States would add more trouble into the conflict. Why is it our job to not only enrage a dictator with chemical weapons in his possession, but also put into turmoil neighboring countries such as Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan who will inevitably be destabilized by an attack (2). Especially now, with Russia and Syria both welcoming the proposal for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons to Russia, I cannot justify giving President Obama the authority for air strikes (3). Why attack a nation, if there is a more peaceful way of dealing with the problem? Maybe then, we can use the money that would have gone to this new war effort, to fix things at home, like Detroit filing for bankruptcy.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-explainer/index.html
(2) http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21584329-present-proof-deliver-ultimatum-and-punish-bashar-assad-his-use-chemical
(3) http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/barack-obama-and-syria
If I were a member of congress involved in voting whether or not to give the president authority to conduct military strikes in Syria, I would vote no. The only real reason as to why someone would argue that we should strike Syria is that of a moral basis. First the Syrian government supposedly uses chemically weapons on its citizens, then Russia blocks U.N. intervention, and now many people feel that it is necessary for the United States to get involved in a civil war that has been going on since 2011, merely on morality alone. The real solution to this situation is not going to be bombing Syria in the hopes it influences them to stop using chemical weapons, but instead to find a diplomatic solution to this issue, such as the one being brokered between John Kerry and Vladimir Putin, where the Syrian government will agree to hand over their chemical weapons, in exchange for the United States agreement to stay out of the conflict (Source 1). This seems to me like it would solve the initial question as to whether or not we should bomb Syria, as we would no longer have a valid reason to do so. Whether or not we choose to act, it is also important to remember that this war has been ongoing for the past two years, and that it has caused massive strife to people the people of the region, causing one of the greatest cultural migrations the region has ever seen (Source 2). All an invasion would accomplish is further disrupting the region, and causing more strife for the people, all in our attempt to make the Syrian government pay for causing their people strife. Flawed logic any way I see it. No matter what decision congress comes to, I think it would be best of we at least waited for the U.N. to officially publish their final results and make a decision on whether to act on Syria (Document 3). Maybe with the official disapproval of the U.N., certain American leaders will choose to think twice about the logistics of bombing Syria.
1.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-civil-war-diplomacy/index.html?hpt=wo_c1
2.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/opinion/bradely-syria-refugees/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
3.http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
If I were a member of Congress I would vote to authorize a strike on Syria. For me, it comes down to a question of ethics; whether or not to stand witness to crimes against humanity. I believe the US does not truly have a choice in the matter. We are the most powerful nation on the planet and, as such, have inherent responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to assure that other nations do not “go rogue” and for instance, use Sarin gas against defenseless civilians. Because this is an issue of ethics, the most solid argument for the strike, I believe, is to calm the fears of opponents. There are three main arguments against the strike on Syria: it would lead to a long war, we have no allies fighting with us, and other nations may retaliate against the US (1). The first fear is one that will live in the minds of many Americans for years to come - the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have scared us from entering any conflict (2). There is this mentality that because our previous wars have been long, there is no way for future conflicts to be short. Notice the lack of facts in those sentences. There is never a way to prove how long a conflict will last, however, the length of US involvement in Syria would depend upon Congress. President Obama is currently asking for authorization to strike Syria, not invade it. Congressional approval is needed to put troops on the ground for extended periods of time and the current proposal has no mention of troops. As for the argument that other countries will not support us militarily, well, the right choice isn’t always the popular one. We would most likely have other countries standing with us if the UN Security Council were to approve the measure, but because Russia is one of the 5 permanent members, and the council requires unanimous approval, there is no way the council will approve it (3). A final fear is retaliation against the US (1). Threats against the US are not a new concept. Threats have surfaced and died in the past just as they will in the future. Just because Iran is on another delusional rant doesn’t mean we should cower from our responsibilities. I believe the situation in Syria boils down to one thing: our role in the world. I’m sure many would like to believe that we are not the world’s policeman but the hard truth is that we are. With great power comes great responsibility. As the most powerful nation on the planet, we do not have the luxury of removing ourselves from unpleasant worldly affairs. I am in no ways affirming that we must get involved in any situation that involves loss of human life: I believe civil wars should be fought as ours was; internally. However, the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity, making the situation entirely different. UN inspectors have concluded that Sarin gas, which essentially paralyzes the muscles in the human body, was used by the Syrian government against it’s own people (2). With these confirmed results it is order duty to the world, and to the history books, to show that such an action will not stand.
1 http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/09/03/218587228/which-bad-syria-option-do-you-prefer
2 http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/meast/syria-developments/index.html
3 http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/09/power-russia-is-holding-un-security-council-hostage-171885.html
As much as it pains me to see a country in such turmoil, I would be greatly distressed and concerned if we in any substantial way influenced Syria militarily, whether it be with money, troops, bombs, or weapons. I cannot bring myself to approve of it. I think a three step plan could help ease the pain, and check Syria's chemical warfare, but above that I think we would be overstepping our bounds.
First of all, I do think we should send in soldiers to Syria - but only to protect any doctors, educators, and journalists we were to also send. I think that if we sent in any type of troops or brute force we would be hypocrites, and even more guilty of having hero complexes. This is yet another country who doesn't really want us there. We have a bad habit of helping countries who ask us to leave, but then ignoring cries of pain from countries such as those in Africa dealing with dictators, rebel forces, and corrupt military forces such as the NRA and LRA (3). Therefore, our main and primary focus should be helping those in camps outside and on the fringes of the country. The many displaced refugees living in horrible conditions need our help more than anyone(5). If we can first set up sanitary, safe camps for refugees, then trust will also be secured for future U.S. action (4).
After we have created safe refugee camps, then we can talk about punishing the government for using chemical warfare, which they may have already promised to stop(1). I agree as much as anyone that we should not allow the chemical use to go on. It both causes destruction and death to the country itself, but also sets a dangerous precedent(2). However, until some sort of health and safety are addressed, and rumors fact checked, it wouldn't make sense to go in with missiles and bombs. This will only serve to ruin any potential peace or help we could offer (4). When we do punish the government we will have to be tactful in order not to also punish citizens.
Finally, I believe if anything is going to work it is peer pressure. Making some sort of list of qualifications Syria and it's potential government must agree to and then meet before receiving further assistance will at least act as a motivator for calming the war and cooperating together(4) (5). Getting other countries to agree may drive this force for change, and ensure that only the guilty truly get punished.
I cannot agree with a military strike, at least not yet, but I can agree with aid, support, and tough love. We shouldn't go in just to look good. We have to go in with purpose and a plan.
1. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/syria-joined-chemical-treaty-thursday-20242574
2. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line/index.html
3. http://allafrica.com/stories/201304050269.html
4. http://www.world-psi.org/en/syria-international-military-strikes-would-jeopardize-options-peace
5. http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/syria-six-alternatives-to-military-strikes
The United States should stay out of the Syrian Civil War. It seems that the only reason there has been renewed interest of military intervention is simply because of the use of chemical weapons. The main issue I have with this being the main reason is that killing people is killing people. Yes chemical weapons are horrifying, but so is raining bombs down on your citizens. Also, without the support of the UN Security Council, an attack on Syria would be a violation of international law [1]. However, because Russia has veto power on the council, there is no way an attack will be supported. The chemical weapons attack reportedly done by Assad is the reason for renewed interest in US involvement, there is some skepticism as to whether he even launched the attack. A UN spokesman confirmed that in July, Russia delivered a 100 page report blaming the rebels for launching the attack [2]. Although Russia is Syria’s ally, if we think about various motivations it makes some sense. There is nothing the rebels would like more than US involvement, they surely would have known that using chemical weapons would help push the United States into the war. Also, Assad has nothing to gain from using these weapons. For the past few months Assad has been making gains and pushing the rebels out of key areas [3]. This would surely make the rebels desperate for an ally. Although this may all sound a bit crazy, the intelligence proving that Assad did the attacks is 'too sensitive' to be released. Interestingly enough, Prime Minister David Cameron stated there is, “no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible” [4]. If the case of whether Assad used chemical weapons came up in a court of law, I am almost certain it would be thrown out due to lack of evidence. It seems to me that going to war, even if it does not kill any US troops, is not worth it without knowing all of the facts. I would assume that the Prime Minister of England would have been filled in about the latest intelligence but even he was not certain. Why risk supporting a side who's agenda is not known? Although it may sound selfish, the Syrian people should be left to solve their problems as the United States struggles to solve its own.
[1]http://www.thenation.com/article/175964/case-against-military-intervention-syria#
[2]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.UjKMvcYqhmx
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10077046/Is-Bashar-al-Assad-winning-the-civil-war-in-Syria.html
[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600624/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/
It is my opinion that Congress should vote to NOT validate President Obama's request to strike Syria. The question at this point in time is not "should the US intervene in Syria", but "should Obama take action to punish Syria for their use of chemical weapons in warfare." This being the case, I believe that voting against the strikes is the best option for two main reasons. One reason is that the UN has confirmed that they have received documents from Syria on joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production and use of chemical weapons (1). The second reason is that Obama's purpose for launching these strikes, as a form of punishment for Syria's use of chemical weapons, is not necessary to prove that the use of chemical weapons is bad, and will most likely lead to more death than the initial chemical strikes (2).
On Thursday, President al-Assad of Syria announced that he has applied to join the UN's Chemical Weapons Convention. If this happens, Syria would be required to submit a declaration detailing all its chemical weapons and the locations of all facilities for producing them within 60 days of joining the convention (3). This was part of Russia's proposal to Syria, a term that President al-Assad accepted. There is also a possibility that these chemical weapons may even be destroyed, and is a topic that is being discussed between officials in Syria, Russia, the US, and the UN (1). If what I stated above is true, there is no reason for the US to send any type of missile into Syria, because the initial threat of chemical warfare is gone. Russia and Syria have previously settled a proposal that the US Secretary of State John Karry is discussing with Russia's Foreign Prime Minister, Sergey Lavrov. This discussion could settle the dispute in writing, and it would have the weight of the UN Security Council behind it. I believe that this is the most logical, and least controversial way to settle the debate on the issue of chemical weapons in Syria.
My other reason for opposing the strikes on Syria is due to the uncertainty of the purpose. Since the civil war going on in Syria is embroiled in chaos, there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Syrian GOVERNMENT was responsible for these chemical attacks. Yes, there is proof that sarin gas was present and used in warfare (3), but neither the corrupt government nor the rebels will ever take responsibility for its use. The question everyone is asking is will these strikes, if authorized, prove anything on the international stage in terms of using chemical weapons in warfare? The answer is no. It is already established that the use of chemical weapons in warfare is against the "norm", but it is almost impossible to regulate warfare. When we try, we fall into a paradox. How do you punish a war crime except with an act of war? These strikes would just lead to more death in Syria, and would not avenge those who lost their lives to the use of chemical weapons (2). Another question is will these strikes prevent chemical weapons from being used again. The answer to that is also no, but it is because Syria will refuse to carry through with it's Chemical Weapons Convention offer if we do strike. Basically, that was a really convoluted way of saying that we can't punish the Syrian government because we will never be certain they are the ones to punish, and it is impossible to carry out a punishment in a way that will set a precedent for the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
If I were congress I would have to vote yes for military action against the Syrian government. There are a number of reasons for my reasoning; the first being The government's inhumane treatment against the civilian faction in this war. As reported by CNN the United States has concluded Syria carried out chemical weapons attacks against its people, in a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus.(1) this startling development means not only is Syria killing their own civilians but their using methods that go against the rules made at the Geneva convention that imply the banning of chemical warfare in war. BBC and the US Secretary of State John Kerry have claimed 1,429 people have died from the chemical weapons 426 of them children(2). These attacks on civilian neighborhood are making many wonder is this a war on rebels or the innocent people caught in the crossfire. Another problem with Syria is because of theses attacks on civilians you have millions of Syrian civilians fleeing Syria.(3) The countries around them have been saddled with taking care of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees mostly women and children. Many of these countries don’t have the means or networking to handle the refugees which leaves the countries who have taken them in in a difficult spot; they either help the refugees and stretch their resources outside of their limits or they don't help them at all. This could lead to economical problems for the whole region not just Syria and could have a major effect on the rest of the world. Not helping Syria will allow more bloodshed under the Assad regime and the impact will affect a whole region in the middle East which will intern affect the world. Taking action in Syria is the best course of action in Syria an action that will stabilize and save a country and save a region.
Works Cited
1.http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
2.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23906913
3.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/09/your-cheat-sheet-to-the-syrian-conflict.html
I personally believe the US should not take military action in Syria. While we have a vested interest in the actions that occur in the middle east, primarily due to oil concerns, it would simply be foolishness to intervene given our prior engagements within the middle east, the monetary implications of starting yet another war, and the issues we are currently dealing with on our own shores. As far as the middle east goes, we are all delightfully aware of the war in Iraq, and our seemingly unending involvement in its proceedings. The Syrian situation has a surprising number of parallels to the events that triggered Desert Storm, especially given the usage of chemical weapons(1). Many Americans view this as a chance for us to make the correct decision this time. We all have been burned by our 11 year old decision, and hopefully we have learned from it and learn to stay out of it and allow UN sanctions to take place. Secondly, we are still in a budget crisis, no matter how far we push it back(2). While many would like to claim the power that is brought by the "war economy" will pull us out of our crisis, forgetting of course, one of the primary causes for the crisis is this 11 year long stint in the "war economy". Getting involved in another issue will simply drain more funds, and exacerbate the current issues. Finally, we have our own issues to deal with at the moment, on our own soil. Of particular interest is the current release of information that showed NSA records of wiretapping and similar conduct(3). These releases also contained state secrets that make us slightly vulnerable at this point in time, in addition to bringing up the NSA issues that will need to be addressed, preferably without the background of conflict in Syria distracting from it. Dealing with these issues in Syria is the reason the UN exists, to pass sanctions against those countries acting out violently. It is not our job to shove our nose in this issue, and it would benefit us on multiple levels to refrain from doing as such
1:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/syria-iraq_n_3909288.html
2:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-07/politics/41843868_1_syria-vote-syria-crisis-house-republicans
3:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/whistleblower-who-exposed-nsa-mass-surveillance-revealed-by-the-guardian/
It is my opinion that an American strike on Syria would be a bad decision for many reasons.
1. The strike is an unpopular measure among American civilians (1) and international governments. Deciding to go ahead with the strike without the support of either of these groups would certainly result in failure in the mission. The U.S. has demonstrated that it is unable to effectively combat popular forms of warfare in the Middle East, and once in Syria it would be inevitable that they would soon request more money, troops, etc. Without agreement from the international community, financial or military support from other nations would be an impossibility. The decision to go ahead with something that the international community condemns would make difficult future American decisions regarding foreign policy. American citizens would be uncomfortable and angry with any decisions the U.S. makes to further extend itself into Syria. All around, this decision would lower moral of American citizens, their satisfaction with the U.S. government, and international leverage.
2. The U.S. government has not thoroughly exhausted its diplomatic options. This should be the first step in mediating a conflict, but in the case of the American government’s attempt to solve the violence in Syria, was completely skipped. This was a foolish decision, as evidenced by the recent, and second-thought, advancement in talks with Russia over an agreement with Syria (2). These talks demonstrate that a solution can be come by without causing ethically wrong situations and causing the American public a significant amount of money and lives. Choosing the diplomatic route also has its benefits with the international community. If this deal were to go through and replace the need for American intervention, it would significantly strengthen ties with Russia (and already has been working to increase cooperation (2)) and put us in a position to receive leverage with them in future situations.
3. Cultural differences between the U.S. and Syria would be a significant roadblock to a successful strike in Syria. A Syrian strike would put America at significant risk of violating Syrian culture, which is already is already being destroyed (3). Adding a strange outsider to the situation in Syria would add more chaos and confusion, especially since the United States has such a strong character and the international community has such strong perceptions of the U.S. If action absolutely was needed for some reason, I think a different solution is needed. The U.S. army would not be conducive to the situation in Syria.
1. “CNN poll: Public against Syria strike resolution,” http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/
2. “Syria crisis: US welcomes 'significant' Russian proposal on chemical weapons,” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/us-syria-russian-chemical-weapons-handover
3. “Syria's cultural heritage being looted, destroyed - UNESCO,” http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-cultural-heritage-being-looted-destroyed-unesco-213309989.html
Based on the research that I have done. I believe that it is in our best interest that the congress does not give President Obama permission to conduct a military strike on Syria. In the past two years there has already been more than 100,000 deaths and millions displaced (1). Creating this military strike will just increase the number. If we want to stop the number of civilians dying we need to think this through and see what else we can do. If we let President Obama lead a military strike on Syria, not only will more civilians die, there will be a greater tension between the United States and Syria. Also the presidents job is to do what is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. On September 10th, 2013, CNN/ORC International Poll found Americans strongly opposing the attack on Syria (2). 59% said that congress should not authorize military actions and 72% said American strikes would achieve no significant goals (2). As I said earlier, i’m positive that there are other means of action besides having a military strike. What I said was true. On the night of September 11th, 2013. In a national debate, President Obama addressed that he was hitting a pause on military action. He stated, “This initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.” (3). Obama has clearly announced that there are other ways to remove the threat of chemical weapons. A military strike is not the only way to go. I agree that we need to remove the weapons but I am not an advocate of violence. I do not think that we will get what we want through the use of force and violence. There will be no winner if this strike happens. Both parties will lose men. Along with that the probability of the US killing innocent Syrians is very high. not only will it kill civilians but it will also cost the US billions. Which also means it will be coming out of our wallets. According to Mr.Bowen, the U.S. special inspector general for war reconstruction in Iraq, it will cost “tens of billions” of dollars to help syria begin to recover. On top of that taxpayers are already exhausted by the 160 billion dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan (4). I am speaking for everybody here when I say that I am pretty sure that nobody wants to pay anymore money to help rebuild other country’s because of what we had done.
(1) http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html
(3) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/10/president-obama-to-address-nation-on-syria/
(4)http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/aftermath-us-intervention-syria-would-co st-billion/
If i was a member of congress I would vote not to attack Syria. We as country should not get more involved in this issue. We have just recently gotten out of a war and now we could be thrown into another war. Many people argue that we as a free nation it is our responsibility to stop this threat of chemical weapons. We don’t have to attack Syria though, to some nations we might look weak(1). This country though doesn’t have to be a nation that needs to be a police of the world. We also don’t have to do this alone we can be the supporter instead of the lead in every problem(2). As of now Russia has agreed to have talks with Syria to hand over all chemical weapons and stop production of new ones(2). Plus Russia is not the only country that is discussing this topic. The U.N. is also having talks about Syria and their chemical weapons(3). These talks will also lead to major consequences for Syria. Which is backed up not just by us and is also being lead by France, Russia, and Great Britain(3). Which shows that if we want to stop threats to our free world we are better when we stand united with other nations. We have to try and use all other means before we commit to attacking a nation that is very unstable and dangerous country. This isn’t the first time as a nation we have decided to attack a country that has WMD. We have done the same thing about ten years ago with Saddam Hussein and his weapons(4). We decided to go and do airstrikes which just a few years later made us put boots on the ground and have a giant conflict in the middle east(4). Thats why we as a country have to stand united and see what happens with the talks between Russia and the U.N. because right now we might not attack with troops but if we airstrike we can't end this peacefully like a peaceful nation should.
(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-a-weil/how-to-vote-on-the-syrian_b_3894561.html
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/meast/syria-whats-next/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/syria-chemical-weapons_n_3933512.html?utm_hp_ref=syria
(4)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/world/middleeast/brief-respite-for-president-but-no-plan-b-on-syria.html?_r=0
Tyler J:
Recently, international focus has shifted to Syria after reports that chemical weapons, banned by international law, were used in 2013 attack just outside the Syrian capital city of Damascus. Syria initially denied using chemical weapons on their citizens, and the ongoing civil war in the country makes the situation even more complicated. It is my strong belief that the United States should not take any military action against Syria for their use of chemical weapons on their citizens. Military action at the current time is not desirable because of the way the United States has handled the situation this far, the fact that our allies and international reputation will be injured, and it is simply not necessary to resolve the conflict.
The first problem that I see in invading Syria is the fact that we’ve dealt with the situation with nothing but incompetence up to this point. To begin, on September 9, 2013 in London, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech in which he sarcastically suggested that, “if [Assad] turned over his complete stockpile of chemical weapons within the next week he could avoid an attack from the United States.” The state department then immediately backtracked through these comments saying that they were a “rhetorical argument” and not an actual proposal and adding that Assad “cannot be trusted” to follow through on an agreement regarding turning over chemical weapons. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately backed the demand, which never was a formal demand to begin, and sent it to Syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem who hoped for a, “quick and positive response.” Later that day, President Obama called the proposal by Russia to avert a US military strike over chemical weapon use “a potentially positive development”. In primetime on September 10, 2013, President Obama gave a speech to the American people laying out his case for targeted military action in Syria, which was a total momentum shift from just 24 hours before. Granted, the President did acknowledge in his speech that the Russian proposal was on the table.
Tyler continued:
President Obama's push for congressional approval for military airstrikes in Syria were far less effective than his administration had hoped for, and on Monday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was forced to delay a procedural vote as the opposition among senators on both sides on the aisle built steadily. As this debate unfolds, one will ask why all of this information is important. The President had the ability to strike in Syria without approval; he chose not to. Now, as the debate rages on in Congress, Syria (assuming they have intentions of not cooperating in the Russian proposal and are using it to further stall for time) would have plenty of time to harden targets, shift assets, and move human shields into strategic areas. It is not smart military strategy to allow the opposition time to prepare itself period, especially if this operation would truly only be for a limited amount of time and put no troops on the ground, decreasing its efficiency. Regardless of whether or not the United States attacks, President Obama looks weaker in the international community for wavering on his course of action, having his plan shot down on a national scale, and having Russia come to the table first with its plan on how the situation can be resolved peacefully. In other news regarding the incompetence of the US government in handling the situation in Syria, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) was “caught” playing poker on his iPhone during the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing where Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey testified concerning the use of force in Syria, on Capitol Hill. During an extremely important time where our leaders are literally handling life and death decisions, we have extremely important public officials playing around on their mobile devices. As if the situation didn’t reflect poorly enough on the United States already, Senator McCain tweeted, “Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate meeting – worst of all I lost!” In my opinion he handled the situation very unprofessionally. If I can get my phone taken away for texting during a Calculus class, which really doesn’t hurt anything but my own education, then those who decide on the fate of countries should have to be a little more focused on the task at hand. The window for military action in Syria has passed, and due to the collective inefficiency and carelessness at the national level in dealing with this situation, the United States didn’t just miss the opportunity, we embarrassed ourselves on an international stage.
Tyler continued:
In addition, the argument has been made that military action in Syria will help the allies of the United States, mainly Israel, by removing Assad from power. This point is a true statement, Israel would definitely benefit if Assad were to no longer have control of the country of Syria. However, as the objective of a US military strike is currently defined, there is no mention of overthrowing the current regime and replacing it with a new one. Currently, our military actions would be limited to air attacks, no ground forces and a maximum period of 60 days to be involved. No part of this would allow for a new government to be installed, at least by the United States (the people on the other hand may be able to overthrow the government). But as the Arab Spring has demonstrated, removing oppressive governments does not always lead to substantially better outcomes for that country. Take Egypt for example; while they successfully overthrew Mubarak in 2011, the military still controls the country. It should also be noted that Israel is also the only country that meddling in Syria could even potentially help (and the benefits would most likely only be short term). The United Nations, especially Russia, has not only refused to support military action against Syria but has also told the United States to seek resolution through peaceful means. Ignoring the will of the UN completely would not only leave us on our own in this fight, but also anger some of our closest trading partners at a time very critical to the continued growth of the US economy. Lastly, if the US were to start a third conflict in the Middle East, even more fuel would be fed to the anti-west sentiment in the region. Traditionally, when the Middle East wants to protest an action of the west, they don’t only act hostile towards the US, but their closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. In short, any military action taken against Syria will hurt not only the United States internationally in terms of reputation, militarily, and economically, we will also hurt the only ally of ours who it could potentially benefit, Israel.
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the main reason that the United States should not take any military action against Syria is because of the fact that it is simply not necessary. As it has been previously stated in this post, Russia has proposed a peaceful resolution to this conflict that both parties (Syria and the United States) have looked favorably on. All signs are pointing to only negative outcomes should President Obama order a military strike, especially this late in the game. Talks to hammer out the finer details of an agreement started between Russia and the US on September 12 at the Intercontinental Hotel Geneve. Led by Secretary of State Kerry, a 29-member American delegation spent three days of intense, tough, round-the-clock negotiating in order to hammer out the US-Russian deal on Syria’s chemical weapons revealed on Saturday, September 14. Since the current outlook for this proposal being accepted, followed and enforced is good; there is no need to engage in military action at this time.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/09/09/syria_chemical_weapons_did_john_kerry_just_accidentally_find_a_workable.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/kerry-says-syria-should-hand-over-all-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/09/10/transcript-obamas-primetime-speech-on-syria/
http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/Obama-Syria-Congress-McCain/2013/09/17/id/526125
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/obama-congress-syria-vote-in-doubt/2788597/
https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-immediately-intervene-in-Syria/1/
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/activities_by_region/middle_east/syria
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/us-russia-syria-negotiatiations_n_3927372.html
I believe that the American military should not send troops to Syria. I think that with the current problems on the home front that the American government has to deal with, a lengthy war in the middle east is not what we need. Until the United States can become economically and socially strong like we have been, going to Syria would only solve minute problems that we are dealing with. The second reason we should not be going to Syria is the cost. War costs a lot of money. The cost of the Iraq war that we were involved in cost Americans almost 900 million dollars (1). With an economy still recovering from a recession, I think that another billion dollars taken away would not help our cause. The third reason against invading Syria is our already unstable relations with their neighboring countries. Such powerful countries as Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia all could have issues with our involvement in this revolution which could lead to even bigger issues. North Korea and China could also be mad at our foreign policy which would bring a whole new element into this war, nuclear missiles. The final reason against involvement is that we don't know much about the rebel group. Many rebels are considered members of Al-Qaeda! (2) The US should not be supporting a rebel group unless their intentions are completely pure.
http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306861/Syrias-rebel-army-pledges-allegiance-Al-Qaeda-new-Islamist-insurgence-threatens-dictator-Assad.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home