I’m so glad that President Barack is waiting for the United Nations investigation as to who is responsible for the chemical warfare attack. So many things could go wrong if the United States strikes against Syria … the main debate I think is what evidence should we accept to warrant the use of force, and what measures should be “exhausted” before taking up arms. United States cannot just rush into Syria similar to what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. Lessons on reducing sectarian and extremist conflict must also be drawn from these examples and applied to the present scenario. Iraq and Vietnam are not the same as Afghanistan (the first one was when the USSR invaded the country). Iraq is an obvious bull crap and Vietnam started as United States lending a helping hand to it’s ally France that turned into a Neoconservative war against the spread of “Communism”(some experts assert that Ho chi Mihn would have won in a fair election if there was one and United States knew it.).
On the other hand, Syria is quite different. if there will be a military intervention, it should be done by a group of countries that must include Islamic countries not just the United States and its traditional allies. If there are atrocities committed in Syria, shouldn’t it be the moral duty of the rest of the world to stop these from happening? So what’s on Syria’s mind right now is the threat of United States involvement in their civil war? They’re probably taking it very seriously and doing their best to deter that situation.
No one is denying that gassing civilians to achieve whatever end is morally indefensible. But the right to protect, as a justification for military intervention, only goes as far as its prospect of success to prevent further humanitarian suffering. Think about it: does launching long-range missiles (which is their current main prong of attack, by the way) really going to annihilate Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile? Most probably it won’t, and what’s worse, you will then have an extremely defensive and irrational Syrian government that has nothing left to lose and has every means, motive, and opportunity to further commit atrocities that you were trying to prevent in the first place–either by conventional means or weapon of mass destruction ( WMDs) . So, what then?
Truth is, cruise missiles don’t really count as a real intervention. It wouldn’t contribute to a better post-Assad Syria on its own in the long run, and wouldn’t destabilize the regime enough at present. It might reduce the possibility of future weapon of mass destruction ( WMDs) use – if targeted at command centers and strategic locations, but then again, the logic behind deterrence (US believes that Syria believes the US will strike if weapon of mass destruction ( WMDs )are used, therefore, Syria will not use WMDs) is hazy and has infinite iterations. A better option would be more on technical support (this sounds like something a CIA bureaucrat would propose) to attempt to unify the moderate rebels under a chain of command, and then to channel weapons to them. Though that doesn’t do too much for civilians in the short term, if the regime can be broken and peace achieved in about a year’s time because of that, it might be worth it.
If you listen to the public statements of Syria government’s representatives , they keep highlighting that the American people will not support United States intervention. In reality the United States one that has a short four years administration turnover, and one which sends its own citizens to battle, is capable of sustaining a credible war effort without strong domestic support. Syria’s remarks about the importance of U. S. citizens support serves as a warning against President Obama and, most of all, Syria’s public relations campaign to wash its hands clean of any wrongdoing is a means to convince the American public that Assad is not a bad guy. What is it? it’s an implied message to rally Americans and psychologically prepare them for the likely military role, albeit probably limited, that their country will take in the middle-east conflict. it’s a can lead into war.