Many of you may have already heard, but yesterday it was reported that the Syrian government allegedly used Sarin* (a deadly gas that disrupts the mechanism through which nerves transfer action potentials to organs) in lethal amounts against its own citizens. Prior to this whole situation, President Obama had mentioned that he would take the necessary actions to aid the rebels in Syria if the Syrian government exhibited brutal and inhumane behaviors that "cross a redline." Although there is bipartisan agreement amongst politicians in the House and Senate that "the line has been crossed" due to the usage of chemical warfare, figuring out what the next step is has left foreign policy at a stand-still. President Obama has recently been meeting with the leaders of various countries that directly border or closely surround Syria, and he's been having very thorough conversations about what might come next in this whole process. If the U.S. does decide to intervene, there will definitely be a need for more helping hands.
The biggest concern right is currently proving the existence of the gas. After what happened during the Bush presidency with the unfulfilling and tragic journey to find weapons of mass destruction, the military wants to proceed with the utmost caution before considering the deployment of more troops to a Middle Eastern country. The U.N. has also asked to investigate the town of Aleppo, where many of the gassings supposedly took place, but Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, has been very limiting and exact on where and how they are allowed to search the area. Regardless, the symptoms of many of the injured and deceased patients seem to be those of Sarin poisoning, so the evidence may be coming to the surface rather soon.
Do you guys think the U.S. should get involved right now, wait it out, or just not do anything at all? Could this situation potentially be very similar to the Bush presidency's "weapons of mass destruction" mishap? What do you think would be the consequences in American politics if our troops are sent to war again?
*Sarin was the chemical that was once used in a famous terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995, so there is a lot of fear and grief that accompanies just the mentioning of this chemical.
7 comments:
I think it is reasonable to draw some parallels between this situation and the Iraq situation. If we don't know for certain that Sarin is being used in Syria, we should not jump at the first sign and act before thinking this through. Especially since our economy is still in recovery and most people do not want to go to war again, I would not recommend President Obama or Congress do anything to get the USA involved right now. We cannot fully count on our allies to help us out either if we are not completely sure Sarin is being used in Syria.
Some would say it is none of the USA's business to get involved in Syria. Of course, the USA has already provided some degree of support to Syria (as mentioned in past blog posts). Though there might be bipartisan consensus that chemical warfare is a line that needs to be watched, that does not mean we will necessarily get involved.
If our troops are sent to war again, I suspect that President Obama's approval rating will stop going down a la Bush. More money will be spent on defense or military programs due to engagement in Syria. Considering how indecisive Congress has been lately (gun control laws, immigration, etc. have not yet made significant gains), I suspect not much will be done in Syria until further evidence is uncovered.
For now, I would not get involved in Syria unless something happens that drastically threatens the USA.
North Korea: "Forget us America? We still have our nuclear missiles aimed at you!"
I agree with Matthew; the US certainly shouldn't be jumping to any conclusions without any concrete evidence or making any hasty decisions whatsoever. After all, with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution presenting a clear example of the consequences of making rash decisions in warfare, the US should wait and verify that Sarin is indeed being used against the Syrian citizens.
I think that events like these remind us how far we have strayed from the once-championed isolationist beliefs that the US should not get involved in foreign affairs. As Matthew said, with our economy still in recovery and our nation still in shock over the Boston Marathon bombings and shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the US has much to worry about domestically. Therefore, the level of involvement we should have in foreign nations is certainly questionable during such a troubling time at home in the US.
I acknowledge both Matt and Sam's opinions on this issue, and I also believe the U.S should maintain a watchful eye instead of rashly jumping into action. Does invading Middle East nations without adequate proof ring any bells? How about Former President Bush's quest to find and secure weapons of mass destruction?
However I must argue that the isolationist policy expressed above is idealistic, but unreal. Ever since the aftermath of World War I, the United States has steadily become the world' champion of freedom and human rights. let's take a look at what happens when the United States tries to follow an isolationist stance; Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary wage war on the world and many millions.
I am in no way implying that another world war is going to be caused by this incident at Syria, but still, being overly passive in this day and age is imprudent. Therein, the United States should definitely take action as soon as sufficient solid proof is found.
While I sympathize with those affected by this situation, I feel that the United States has domestic issues to handle at the moment. After the Sandy Hook shooting and the Boston Marathon bombings, I think the United States has a lot of healing to do. Additionally, I agree with Kurtis that once solid evidence is found the United States should take action. It would be best not to let history repeat itself, with regards to Bush and the Iraq situation. Therefore, we should keep a close eye on this issue and only act when necessary. I am glad that the President and Congress are aware of this issue. Should this become a larger threat to humanity, the President could certainly send troops into Syria. I am not concerned about Obama's approval rating. I think saving lives is a much bigger priority than whether Obama's approval rating is going to be lower than Bush's or not.
I agree that the US should be cautious when considering intervention in Syria. Syria does not pose a large threat to other nations so there isn't a whole lot of reason for other countries to intervene except to save civilians. Also, if intervention brings another dictatorship to power or a government not friendly to the US, then our efforts would seem largely in vain. In addition, any troop deployment within Syria would probably cross the line of how much we can intervene. Air strikes are much different than boots on the ground. If the US does intervene, it should be done with the consent of many nations like the first Iraq War.
I do agree in large part with Kurtis' idea of isolationism giving rise to greater and greater problems. While I appreciate that he qualified his position by stating that he had not implied that the conflict in Syria would instigate another world war, I think that the overall spirit of that idea is a very topical one.
Rather than isolationism vs. interventionism, though, the Economist characterized the general lack of decisive response as minimalism and indecisiveness. And the authors thoroughly criticized the efficacy of such attitude, stating "It is true that the president faces only bad choices in Syria. But he partly to blame. While American and its allies have dithered over calls to arm more moderate wings of the opposition or to impose no-fly zones, the most alarming militants have grown in clout, including fighters who ave sworn fealty to al-Qaeda."
In other words, America waited and let bad get worse. So in that sense, I wonder if further waiting would necessarily be in the best interest of furthering America's foreign policy agenda and ensuring its domestic security.
Post a Comment