Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
That's the phrase that best describes United States involvement in the quagmire in Syria. The United States is arguably the wealthiest country with the greatest military capability in the world. If we do get involved in the civil strife in Syria, many would criticize us for acting out of simply selfish motives. They would shame us for being the policemen of the world. If we do not intervene, on the other hand, we would be seen as cowards and weak in the eyes of our adversaries, such as Iran, North Korea, and Hizbullah to name a few. We set a "red line" that was crossed and we did nothing. Assad got off essentially scot-free with no consequences, so what's to stop them from using chemical weapons? If we do not intervene, the international community would look at the United States and say “Why did you sit by and just watch these atrocities occur and not do anything?” But there is a very strong anti-war sentiment within the American people as well as many senators and representatives. After 10 years of two wars that essentially made this country go belly-up economically, we are war weary. Most still remember the blunder that was Iraq. We invaded under the guise that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; none were ever found.
Iraq is eerily similar to Syria. Both had a dictator massacring his own people. Both were allegedly possessing and using weapons of mass destruction. There shouldn't be a doubt in anyone's mind that chemical weapons. But by who, is the true question. The Syrian rebels have been desperately seeking US intervention and have obtained many Syrian equipment. Once the United States set that "red line", the rebels knew what had to take place in order for the US to intervene and (hopefully) turn the tide in their favor.
I am by no means saying that the rebels did it or that Assad's regime didn't. I'm simply saying there is no clear, concise evidence that points to the true perpetrator of these grotesque acts of war.
The offhanded comment Secretary of State John Kerry made early this week seems to have gained some ground behind it. Both the Russians and the Syrians have agreed to negotiate further to place Syrian chemical weapons under the hands of the international community (the UN). Hopefully, there will be a diplomatic end to all the bloodshed in Syria which has killed 100,000s+ and dislocated millions more. But I doubt that will be the case.
Even United States involvement will not alleviate the situation. It's a situation of too little too late. If the US had intervened and armed the rebels earlier, before Islamist militants such as the Al-Nusra front, Al Qaeda and Jund al-Sham (all designated as terror groups by the United States and other Western countries) hijacked the revolution. Do we risk arming the mujaheddin again, much like we did in Afghanistan in the late seventies to early eighties? If so, what's to say they won't use those weapons against us a few years down the road?
What needs to happen is intervention on the side of the Arab league and Russia. These are the groups who have the strongest say in what is occurring in Syria and have the potential to help end this peacefully.
The future looks bleak for Syria and it is going to be a while before this issue is fully resolved. Expect to see a lot more bloodshed as well as further tensions between Russia and the United States.
The United States, being undisputedly the most influential country in the world, has a certain level of responsibility toward the citizens of the world. Whenever a world event of this magnitude presents itself, every country in the world turns to the US to see what their position on the matter is. You're completely correct in saying that the United States is in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. I don't think the United States should directly negotiate with any Syrian official or rebel. Everything should be handled through the United Nations. The Security Council should decide what to do here. No sort of help should be sent in the form of troops or weapons. That will only escalate the conflict. But help should be sent in the form of food and other necessities and first aid to those who have been injured. The two options that the Security Council should consider are either investigating the event and finding a culprit/s and taking him/them to UN court for crimes against humanity and for violation of the Geneva Convention. The other option they should consider is confiscating any remaining weapons (or any weapons of the sort) and putting Syria on a probation-like period during which they can do no research on nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and any violation of that will result in severe repercussions from the UN and the members of the Security Council.
ReplyDelete