It appears that President Obama is coming closer to making a decision to order a military strike of some kind against Syria. While I realize he has reasons for this decision, this is actually one of the few times I am completely opposed to the actions of his administration. Most of the time I can either agree with the president or see the reason for his actions well enough that I can be at some kind of peace with his decisions, but I can't this time. I realize that the president feels he may need to order the strikes but I really believe it is a mistake. The reason I believe that ordering any kind of military intervention in the conflict in Syria is because there is almost nothing to be gained and a great deal we could lose.
Background
I am pretty sure that if your reading this then you probably have a basic grasp of what is going on, but if you don't here is a quick run down.
A couple of years ago the Middle East nation of Syria erupted into civil war. In that time there have been many calls for the US and other western nations to get involved because this war has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. At first, this actually looked like a civil war the US would want to get behind because the leadership of Syria is very anti US and happens to have close relations with Iran's. Yet, while it looked like we might want to at least back the rebellion with some kind of support, we learned that many of the people who are providing money and weapons to the rebels are actually radical Muslims. This means that even if the rebels won the civil war and got rid of Assad (the head of state in Syria) we wouldn't wind up in a better position in that part of the world.
All of this changed dramatically a few days ago when it was reported that someone had used chemical weapons in an attack that killed thousands of civilians. Because the United States has stood against the use of chemical weapons since World War I we feel a responsibility to monitor their use. When we first started paying attention to the Syrian uprising, we quickly decided not to get involved but warned the Assad government if they used chemical weapons in the conflict (which he has done before) we would become involved. The US put this line in the sand in hopes it would deter Assad from using chemical weapons, but it looks like that didn't work.
Now the US finds itself in a bad situation. If it decides to not make any kind of military strike, then we run the risk of loosing respect from our allies and looking like we are weak when challenged. However, if we do make strikes there is no telling what kind of path that will force us to walk. This is the type of situation that no leader wants to find themselves in, but unfortunately for President Obama, he has to make a decision and no matter what he decides there will be consequences that are not entirely his fault.
The Pros and Cons of a Military Strike
The only good reason for making a strike against Syria right now comes down to the fact we put a line in the sand. If there hadn't been an attack using chemical weapons, we more than likely wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem is that while we may wish otherwise, that line in the sand has been crossed and now we got to choose what to do about it. It may seem like the easy answer is to simply order a strike against Syria and let them know we won't stand for the used of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, it really isn't that easy.
The main reason a strike may not be the best idea is because we have very little to gain from it. If the rebels were pro democracy then maybe we would, but they aren't. In fact the rebels may be a worse group to have in power than Assad. Assad may not be a friend to the US and he is not a nice guy, but he is a known quantity that we have learned to deal with. If we do make a strike it isn't going to change things as far as the overall conflict goes. While we might take out a couple of valuable Syrian targets, it won't topple the Assad regime and will also kill innocent civilians who have already suffered enough. In order to actually get any kind of benefit from military action we would have to commit ourselves to yet another war and right now we really can't afford that.
Along with having nothing to gain from military action is the fact we really don't know who used the chemical weapons. While the Obama administration is saying they are positive it was Assad, this really doesn't make sense. Assad has actually worked to make sure the US doesn't get involved in the conflict. The Syrian government has gone so far as to allow UN inspectors into the country to keep a tab on things in hopes of keeping the west out of the conflict. When you think about this, it makes almost no sense for Assad to be stupid enough to provoke us in the one way he knew would force our hand.
It would seem that once you consider the pros and cons, price we will pay and risk we take by making a strike obviously outweighs any benefit we get from "sticking to our guns" in this situation. I am not saying Assad should be allowed to get away with using chemical weapons. I am not saying that the current regime in Syria is a good thing. However, there are horrible things happening in every corner of the globe and lots of bad leaders out there and we are not doing anything about them. I know the president isn't looking for my advice, but if he did I would tell him he needs to stay as far away from this conflict as possible. Our nation doesn't gain a damn thing from lobbing bombs into Syria, and stands a chance to lose a great deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment