Dissecting the affairs of nations
There has been very little predictability in the last few years in Syria. But any political analyst or historian will tell you that the US was due to intervene in Syrian affairs. The time is drawing closer and closer, it seems. Indirectly, the US has been aiding Syrian rebels for a few months now with medicine, food and inconclusive amounts of weapons and ammunition. But the “red line” has now been crossed….again, and the Syrian situation is too dire to ignore because of the latest chemical weapons attacks in the country.
So the boy who cried chemical weapons in Iraq and spent nearly 800 billion dollars is now making the same claim in Syria. Cynics are too skeptical and supporters are too cynical. We do have a few question for the impulsive Secretary of State, John Kerry who threw his cape on as soon as he heard of chemical weapons and a chance to intervene.
First of all, with a less then 9% approval rate for intervention, what democratically elected administration would even think about going anywhere?
Second of all, the substantial proof that Assad was the one to use chemical weapons is still unavailable. Assad has actually well-documented proof that his government does not know where the chemical attacks even occurred. Phone calls between ministers have been unveiled and intercepted that show the unawareness level of the government when it came to chemical weapons. So where is your proof the the rebels did not use the nerve gas themselves?
Thirdly, we can claim “Iraq is not syria” until the troops come home; but Iraq is the same as syria. It is the same in the sense of location, resilience of the president, and military power. As a matter of a fact, with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah backing Assad up, 800 billion dollars will not cover more than a couple of years. We will sink further into debt, create more enemies and kill more of our own troops. Remember that all of this is with a 57% less approval rating than the Iraq war, which later shrunk into less than half of that and is now being viewed as one of our biggest mistakes following Vietnam. So where are the positives?
Fourth of all, how can we say we are fighting a war on terror when Assad is fighting the same enemies that America is. Assad is fighting extremist factions like ‘Al-Nusra Front’ which is an Al-Qaeda linked organization. So in places like Yemen and Afghanistan we fight the same factions that we will be helping claim victory in Syria. Even if Assad was assassinated and his military of thousands were destroyed (a very unlikely scenario), the US would have to fight Al-Qaeda links in Syria, unless it withdraws immediately after the defeat of Assad which will leave the country more unstable than it is now, and Libya is proof of that. So are we fighting to kill the defiant Assad, or do we actually care for the people?
We have enough to worry about at home. We do not have jobs, our student debt is in the high billions, the economy is at risk of a double-dip recession, and our congress has the lowest approval rating in history. Yet we find it absolutely fine to intercept a war which is very futile and has absolutely no purpose to fulfill for Americans. It is a lose-lose war, no good will come of it.
If Syria has chemical weapons, they have acquired them recently because Sarin gas, which is what is said to have been used, has the shelf life of only a few weeks, which means whether it is the rebels or the military that has used them, they were not sitting on a shelf waiting to be used for years. They were just concocted in some lab or underground layer. So let’s think about this for a second; Assad, whose army and supporters live in the capital along side him and his governors, fired Sarin chemical weapons a few miles away from those people knowing that the chemicals are extremely toxic and can be transferred to them via air?
If Assad had chemical weapons, why use them now? Why wait until the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is no longer in power, Turkey’s Erdogan is more stable, and military training in Jordan is over. In other words, why not use them when all of those were a real threat and not when things are calm?
Finally, if Assad still has weapons like BM-21 multi-rocket launcher than can hit a target of up to 40km, more than enough for the military stronghold in Damascus to hit Ein-Tarma, the alleged place of the chemical attacks, Why not use those first? Why risk intervention and transfer of toxic chemicals to his own supporters and troops that live in the same city.
Now if the rebels just made them, would it not be in the best interest to use them? For one thing It would draw foreign intervention nearer and their supply line would blossom and that means another wound for Assad to prevent. Secondly, it would give the rebels the sympathy they need from the world to side with them. It would also scare people from
being near Damascus, Assad’s strongest region.
Their weapons are limited. They smuggle their guns and have nothing more sophisticated than ground arm weapons, so when first gaining chemical weapons, would they not be more likely to use them?
The issue of Syria is controversial, some support the rebels, other support the regime. But let us not claim that human life is why the world is staring at Syria now more than ever. It is just fear of being the next target in chemical warfare that sends us scattering to the region. Over 100,000 died, 8 million fled and hundreds die weekly, and until a few days ago, before we found out that chemical weapons were used, we barely mentioned Syria twice. Suicide bombings have the potential to kill more than chemical attacks, so why not draw the line there? Why now? We all have our opinions, but just remember that not everything you heard and read is true in the media and that history always tends to repeat itself. Lastly, take this away from this article if nothing more, always view these events in the ripple long-term effect that they will lead to, not the immediate consequence that will eventually disintegrate.