Home Columns & Editorials Speaking Of...

Speaking Of… Syria

Syria is in the midst of a civil war and the United States wants to intervene. The question I have to ask is why? According to a recent report by the United Nations more than 100,000 people have been killed thus far and another 2 million people have fled the country. Based on those facts alone any reasonable person would be unable to fathom why we would send our troops, most of whom are my peers, to bully Syria’s President into treating his people with the rights that they deserve. Essentially, we will occupy their country, kill their men and suffer our own fatalities all so they can stop inflicting violence on their own people? None of that makes sense. 

Let’s also not forget that none of our allies supported us arming the Syrian rebel force (which was done anyway shortly after Syria’s reported use of chemical warfare) or direct military action. Our Commander-In-Chief seems to be the only one that thinks this is a good idea. In fact, a Russian official stated that even though Russia and Syria are allies due to a multi-billion dollar arms contract, they are refusing to deliver weapons to them and President Putin told President Obama that the Russian and U.S positions on how to handle this matter do not “coincide”. Furthermore both Russia and Egypt, another key country in the region, have both refused to back a military strike on Syria and would rather come to a peaceful resolution. Egypt has urged peace talks while Russia has recommended Syria hand over its chemical weapons. Both recommendations would clearly prevent unnecessary military action and seem like a positive solution worth trying.

Still though, President Obama seems set to turn this civil war into a world war. Because even though he has agreed with numerous other nations that he would too prefer to have a diplomatic end to this crisis, according to an article on CBCNews Obama is not confident that Syria would hand over its weapons. However, President Obama did say that he is confident that he can get approval to strike Syria. My question is now this: if the president would rather end this crisis peacefully why is he still pushing, and hoping for, approval to attack? The most obvious reason, to me at least, is that he wants to appear as though he is amenable to other’s ideas but is truthfully a strong proponent of launching a costly war…but that just doesn’t sound good to the public now does it?

The crisis in Syria, which has been classified as a civil war since July 2012 is no closer to an end than it was in the 16 months prior to the Red Cross formal declaration. With the overwhelming majority of world leaders not interested in the United States attacking Syria we can only wait to see what our President ultimately decides to do. Will we invade and lose billions of dollars and thousands of men or will we attempt to reach a peaceful conclusion with Syria? Only time will tell.


Reader Responses