By now, I’m sure everyone has heard of the most recent reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime against rebel forces. The attack on August 21 claimed the lives of hundreds of non-combatants, and has spawned many debates in the global realm.
International laws and norms clearly prohibit the use of chemical weapons, and rightfully so, but is military action the best solution? President Obama is calling for limited strikes against the regime.
U.N. inspectors have completed the fieldwork that is expected to provide crucial evidence in regards to the attack, but a full analysis has yet to be completed. While the U.S. is prepared to conduct military airstrikes on the region, claiming the attacks were certainly ordered by Syrian government forces, international and domestic hindrances are keeping the Obama administration from action. With responses from China, Russia, and Iran, all allies of Syria, it would be in the best interest of the United States to remain hesitant in a situation in which several of our own allies have chose to do so.
While the use of chemical weapons is a matter that should be handled with the utmost importance, the most utilitarian response to the attack on Damascus is another debate. Military intervention, particularly airstrikes, is the desired action by the Obama administration. Multiple government officials have noted that there are no other interests that are motivating the hasty assertion of military action besides deterrence of future use of chemical weapons.
If this were the absolute case, I would be more in favor of helping the Syrian opposition in some manner. However, the complexity of international politics is only convoluted more by the external interests of government and corporate elites from all sides.
Diplomatic and/or institutional approaches should be considered more favorably versus military action by the United States. International courts were established to prosecute and determine the guilt of those who are accused of violating international law. The utilization of these courts has not been mentioned in any media report I’ve observed. Shaky relationships with the aforementioned allies of Syria and a U.S. military offensive could potentially provoke conflict on a larger scale.
Take the time to question the rationality of the proposed actions by our nation’s leaders, for they will have an effect on the future in which we live.
