After information was revealed that
Syria has chemical weapons and has the potential to use them during the current
war, Hillary Clinton warned that the US would take preventive action if
chemical weapons are indeed a part of President Bashar al-Assad’s future acts
against the rebels in Damascus. If necessary, the US has threatened to have
troops secure the weapons. However, the Syrian foreign ministry claims that the
weapons will not be used to escalate the ever-going war.
Syria is believed to have ballistic missiles that can hold
chemical warheads, which could threaten Israel and Turkey, allies to the US. Clinton
and NATO plan discuss how to protect Turkey against possible missile attacks on
Tuesday. Airstrikes or broadening of no fly zones, on the other hand, do not
seem to be likely because of chemical deployment risk and further tensions
between the Turkey-Syrian border.
6 comments:
Even if the Syrian Foreign Ministry claims that their new chemical weapons won't be used, personally I wouldn't believe it. Countries surrounding Syria, especially Turkey and Israel, need to watch their backs if a well-armed and hostile Syria becomes a reality. Fortunately, NATO recently supported a plan to sent Patriot missiles to Turkey so that Turkey may defend itself from Syria's chemical weapons. Israel, however, may have a more difficult time trying to defend itself given tensions with Palestine and Gaza. While the US may be able to aid both Turkey and Israel, military and financial aid can only go so far. I'm not sure that the US is in a position to commit to another war, but we'll have to see what happens in the next few months.
In my opinion, it is troublesome that Syria now has the potential to use chemical weaponry. Given the instability of the region, an armed Syria is especially dangerous.
Thus far, the US has resisted becoming involved directly with the conflict in Syria, but will these new weapons change our country's game plan? Not only are these weapons dangerous for Syria to be in control of, but this situation itself is dangerous in that the US may decide to step in. This is a potentially dangerous idea.
I really hope Assad isn't stupid enough to deploy chemical weapons on his own people. In addition to just being a horrible act, the use of these weapons would also be counterintuitive. By killing their own people, the government would just be killing itself. While the purpose of using such weapons on its people would be to quell a rebellion, this act would just hurt the Syrian government as western nations would definitely respond with serious force. As our president has said, "if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable"(1). By quelling a rebellion in their country with chemical weapons, the Syrian government would just be starting a much larger fight. Im optimistic that the Syrian government will realize this and not use its weapons. Just because there is always the chance that the Syrian government might use these weapons anyways, I think its good that we have a plan to remove them if necessary. I think its also good that we have sent in military aide to Turkey as this will further deter Assad from using the weapons.
1. http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/obama-warns-syria-s-assad-against-use-of-chemical-weapons.premium-1.482172
I think the US should not send in troops to Syria if the Syrians uses chemical weapons in the future. The US should just give Israel the green light to take out the chemical weapons. I think any levels of US intervention would make the case more complicated (escalating a civil war to an international conflict), a situation both not beneficial to the US and the countries in the region.
The US should work on uniting the international committee to give more pressure to the current government in Syria to reach a peaceful resolution between the Syrian government and the rebels, like how Russia is advocating . Right now Russia is still downplaying the Syrian chemical weapon threat. Russia is one of the most important allies the Syrian government has in history. To make any moves effective, the US should seek Russia's support.
This is a serious issue and I think the US should continue to try to pressure Syria to not use chemical weapons, however I also think it is unrealistic and an empty threat that the US will use force and troops to secure the weapons in Syria.
I wonder just how bad things will have to do for the US to seriously consider moving troops in to take action. I do not think this action, even though it is terrible, will be enough to shift enough people towards wanting to take force.
I think the issue of chemical weapons in Syria has escalated quite quickly in just the past two days, as today NBC and Fox News have reported components of sarin being loaded into aerial bombs. Considering sarin is an extremely deadly neurotoxin, nearly 500 times more lethal than cyanide, having these chemical agents confirmed to be locked and loaded into bombs by just this Wednesday, a repeat of Hussein's Halabja massacre does not seem too far out of the picture at this point. With such deadly weapons on hand, and Assad at the ready to authorize their use, the US is right to threaten the use of military force to secure the banned and outlawed (way back in 1993) chemical weapons. Although at this point it might be too late and probably not the best idea to risk the lives of American troops that have the possibility of dying almost "instantly" from such exposure.
Post a Comment