Ever since the reported gassing of Syrian civilians,
President Obama has been mulling over the idea of military intervention. After
the speech about the 'red-line' crossed by the Assad regime from a few months
ago, Syria was sort of put on the back burner. Now, it's back to being front
page news.
Now, Secretary of State John Kerry has come out and said
that Sarin gas was in fact used in the chemical attack[1].
Since this revelation, members of congress and the President have been
advocating for strategic military strikes to deter Assad from using chemical
weapons again. One major issue with this assessment is the assumption that it
was in fact Assad who used the gas. There have been reports that it was
actually the rebels who used the gas, as well as having committed other
horrific atrocities. According to some
at the UN involved in the investigation of the sarin gas attack, it was the
rebels who used the nerve agent[2].
Given the ties between the rebels and Al-Nusra Front it wouldn't be surprising
that the rebels are the ones behind the attack. It's unclear what sort of
evidence the President has that contradicts the UN and affirms that it is Assad
using chemical weapons.
Since the President is sure it is the Assad regime, he has
been threatening force over the past few days. As usual, he went to the UN to
find support, but Russia and China voted against military action in Syria and
have warned the US to not get involved in the region[3].
Now that the UN has been essentially
ruled out, the US was looking to its closest ally, Britain. A few days ago, Britain
held a vote on joining the US in action against Syria, which was struck down[4].
Once the reports came from Britain that they would not strike Syria, the
President started thinking about taking action alone. The President led on that
he would strike even if he didn't have support from congress and other nations.
Now, Obama is saying that congressional authority is something he wants to
carry out their strikes.
Since this sort of flip on the issue, war hawks like Senator
McCain are blasting his decision and saying that Assad is "Euphoric"
about the President's decision. Many of the war hungry representatives are
unhappy with the president's decision. They are seeing it as a sign of weakness
that will make the US look like it is now unable to commit to military action.
While it does make the US seem unwilling to strike, it's the
right decision. When making the choice to fly planes to a foreign country and
destroy targets as well as kill people, Congress needs to be consulted. The
authority of "Commander-in-Chief" has gone WAY overboard in the
modern era. We have become to comfortable with war presidents. War is something
that shouldn't be decided to easily. With the advanced technologies we possess
and the ability to separate the personal experience of war we seem to make the
decision more lightly than usual. For the US, sending boots on the ground is
hard, a drone is easy because it poses almost no risk to us. But to the people
of Syria, it's still the same outcome. They still will see it as the big
policeman of the world, the US, has bombed innocent people who were never a
threat in the first place.
Another issue with the proposed intervention is Syria is
that there is no real end goal. The President claims that the strikes will make
it so Assad will not use chemical weapons again. But can some strategic strikes
really prevent anything indefinitely? Even if the gassing stops, the Assad regime
will still be in control and there will still be a war raging between the
government and the rebels. We will only be adding to the destruction.
Now that the president has decided to seek the approval of
congress, let's hope they listen to the people and vote against furthering the
destruction Syria is experiencing.
No comments:
Post a Comment