On August 21st, Syrian civilians, residing in the suburbs near Syria’s capital, Damascus, found themselves the victims of a chemical weapons attack, allegedly carried out by President Bashar al-Assad as part of Syria’s civil war. Internationally banned since the meeting of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, the use of chemical weapons in an attack against civilians is a shock to the global community.
This chemical attack claimed the lives of 1,429 people, including 400 children. Although President Obama entered his second term with a promise to remove America from Middle Eastern conflicts, the nature of this attack and the resulting deaths pushed Obama to rally support for a punitive strike against Syria. The American people, however, are more hesitant to agree that the U.S. should attack Syria.
Obama said that Assad’s government crossed
a “red line” in their use of chemical warfare. Other dictators are paying close attention to the United States’ response to this international crime. If our nation were to do nothing, this could signal to other dictators that they are free to ignore America’s warnings and break an international law without any repercussions. Further, we could see a resurgence of chemical weapons in warfare, frowned upon since WWI, or as a tool for terrorist groups. A U.S. strike could help to bring an end to Syria’s two and a half year civil war responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Syrians.
One major argument, among others, being made in favor of not taking action against Syria is that we aren’t absolutely sure who is behind the chemical weapons attack. The Obama administration insists that it was carried out by Assad’s regime, but we don’t have hard evidence of that. It is unlikely that the rebels carried out the attack because it killed many civilians, but the opposition could have used such weapons to in the hopes of triggering outside intervention.
U.S. military attacks can only be carried out by an act of Congress under the Constitution, which is why Obama has asked congress to vote on a decision of either attacking Syria or leaving the situation alone. Yet, as history shows, the President can declare war without Congressional approval as was done in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. An attack unapproved by congress would not only violate U.S. law, but it would also violate international law because Syria has not attacked the U.S. What gives the U.S. the right to illegally strike Syria for breaking an international law while the a U.S. strike on Syria would be breaking one too?
If the U.S. does intervene, this might push Syrian allies like Hezbollah and Iran to retaliate; they might launch attacks on Israel, a strong U.S. ally. In the past, violence in Syria has extended to its neighbors such as Lebanon, Turkey, and Iraq; therefore, a strike on Syria can potentially
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
set the whole Middle Eastern region ablaze with war. However, it is difficult for us to sit back idly knowing the continued dangers that Syrians will face with future chemical weapons attacks as leaders in many aspects of international affairs.
Even though a decision has not been made, as of September 4th, Obama has received support from the Republican leaders in the House but has been denied support from 59% of Americans. Following his appeals at last Thursday’s G20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Obama will be making a televised speech on Tuesday addressing last month’s chemical weapons attack, the future of an unpunished Syria, and the potential for American involvement.
UPDATES
Tuesday, September 10, 2013: President Obama delivered a 16-minute speech to the nation with his decision to further delay the strike on Syria. The decision came as a result of his desire to focus on a Russian plan for international monitors to destroy Syria’s supply of chemical weapons, which seems to be a better alternative to war. Watch Obama’s speech below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeT-IdgCo