For those who haven’t been paying attention to the chemical crisis in Syria, let me assure you that this issue, especially at this pivotal moment, is as important as the decision made by the United States government to invade Iraq in 2003.
Obama is playing a dangerous and foolish game if he intends to disregard the United Nations Security Council and move forward with military intervention despite having little international support, virtually no support from the American public, without a supportive Congress.
AP Photo
Without going through the proper channels or letting the U.N. inspectors do their jobs, the U.S. government runs the risk of reducing the amount of political sway held internationally, making the American public lose confidence in their elected government. The world already views the U.S. government as aggressive and intrusive, thanks to the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq with very little political backing.
As of Thursday, Aug. 29, the Obama Administration had support from English Prime Minister, David Cameron, who, along with his legal team, argued, “…under international law, targeted military action in Syria was justified on humanitarian grounds, even if there was no agreement at the United Nations.”
This viewpoint blatantly disregards the rules of the U.N. conventions when it comes to militarism against a member nation.
Luckily this has since been voted down by the British Parliament by a vote of 285 to a close 272; their reasoning being that there was not enough evidence to warrant international intervention. It is refreshing to see that at least 285 votes in the British Parliament have learned a lesson from the days of Bush and Blair.
The danger of ignoring the U.N. Conventions (to which the U.S. and Britain are signatories) is an inevitable belief amongst essentially everyone in the world that the strongest military powers of the world can intervene whenever they deem it necessary.
It is difficult to claim that intervention is driven by some moral obligation when, throughout history, military powers have sat on their hands as atrocities have gone on. It leads one to believe there is another (probably financial) interest in intervention.
If the Obama Administration is really concerned with upholding international law, then it should push for bringing Assad to justice by putting him on trial for war crimes.
Bombing Syria will inevitably kill more innocent people and hinder diplomacy in the area. The increase in innocent death by U.S. bombs is only one of the probable outcomes.
As of Friday, Aug. 30, Iran and Lebanon (specifically Hezbollah) are in discussion about a planned retaliation against Western interests, i.e. Israel, Turkey, and Jordan. This could have catastrophic results, dare I say the start of a larger war. The resistance to Western intervention is also coming from Russia, who just deployed two warships to the Mediterranean Sea.
Granted, this deployment is probably just a show of intimidation but it is not something to take lightly. With so much on the line, it seems like a good idea to show some patience, wait for the U.N. investigators to return with their findings and then make an informed decision.
I may believe Russian movement in the Mediterranean to be mere posturing, but I do not think the same of Iran’s staunch, aggressive stance. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard Corps., has publicly stated that, “the flames of war would not be limited to Syria.”
It is terrifying to think that countries are beginning to mobilize all because of an impending intervention by the West. Would it not be smarter to find a diplomatic solution to this issue?
If the line in the sand is chemical warfare, why hasn’t the U.S. intervened in the past? If it is a political move on Obama’s part, why hasn’t he realized that only 9% of the American public agrees with military intervention? This could effectively do to the Democratic party what the invasion of Iraq did to the Republican party.
I am in no way a non-interventionist, but intervention must be done properly. The U.S. should learn from past mistakes and garner U.N. support before hastily jumping into war, especially considering the consequences are many and unknown. We, as a nation, have for the last eight years gauged political failure by the actions of Bush and Blair but now, for some reason, Obama is willing to make the same mistake. The scary part is that I think the repercussions may be much more dire.
The solution to this, in my humble opinion, is to gather of all the involved nations and negotiate a ceasefire. A cease fire would allow U.N. officials to occupy the area and maintain peace while a negotiation is met. This should be overseen by the U.N.
The absence of such a negotiation will only result in the continuance of the Syrian civil war and further strain on international relations. But, I’m sure plenty of arms will be sold to both Syrian rebels and Assad alike.