Greetings to all those who are reading this column. I would just like to note before reading this column that the way it will be written will try to give a fair understanding of the story presented, the sides of the story (if there is more than one side) and give the reader a more in-depth analysis of the story. Of course, bias will always be present but one cannot rid it entirely. At the end of each story, I will give my personal opinion, which does not in any way reflect the opinion of the paper. With that being said, shall we crack on?
Syria, located in the Middle East, is bordered by Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Turkey, and Jordan. The Syrian civil war is an international story and conflict that has captured the attention of the world, specifically the Western World. The conflict has many sides to it, but the main two combatants are the Free Syrian Army (rebels) and the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad. The reason for so much attention is the recent turn of events where the United States says it has evidence the Assad government used Sarin gas, a chemical weapon, on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus, the capital of Syria. The U.S. claims that over 1,400 people died. This has compelled the U.S. President Barack Obama to put before Congress a bill that would allow the U.S. military to carry out strikes against targets in Syria within 90 days, but without American personnel on the ground.
Now this is a big deal since these weapons are banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The convention states that chemical weapons cannot be produced, stockpiled or used. But since this convention only applies to the signatories, why does the U.S. care so much about chemical weapons being used by a state that has not signed onto the convention?
The answer is both confusing and muddy. The official explanation put forth by Obama is that this strike would deter the Assad government from using chemical weapons again and shows to the world that the U.S. will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by foreign governments. This is all well and good except when you look at the track record of the U.S. and chemical weapons. It still has stockpiles of chemical weapons and as recently as 2004 has used chemical weapons in Fallujah (Iraq) according to Democracy Now website and a press release from the Pentagon in 2005.
Now for the unofficial reason and speculation by political observers, as well as myself. The Americans want the rebels to succeed in toppling Assad, hoping to gain another ally in the Middle East or at the least rid themselves of one of the allies of Iran.
As for the United Nations, which includes the Assad-ally Russia on its Security Council, it is extremely unlikely to support the U.S. strike plan, preferring a political solution to the conflict.
In summation, does indirect, limited violence stop others from committing violence?
No, a limited strike by the U.S., no matter what key installations are targeted, will not stop the violence in Syria. It will not change the course of the Civil War. Russia and Iran will continue to back Assad until he is proven of ordering the horrendous atrocities while Saudi Arabia and other Western nations will continue to supply arms to the rebels. All the while, the UN is stuck knowing chemical weapons were used but cannot absolutely prove who used them.
Michael Farr is a third year political science student.
