Chemical Weapons in Syria: How Did We Get Here? - by Hannah Selby

    For years there has been complicated strife and conflict in Syria that has grown to the point where other nations are feeling apprehensive.  
    It all began when a man named Bashar al-Assad became president of Syria in 2000, pledging to create a "more modern and democratic nation." However, after failing to fulfill this promise, activists called their government an "authoritarian, totalitarian and cliquish regime" as they led a series of rebellions. Later, 15 children were arrested for making anti-government graffiti - the initial cause of the subsequent protests and rallies of thousands that escalated into the civil war going on today.
  The war now also involves the deeper conflict between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims due to the fact that almost 3/4 of the Syrian people are Sunni, while al-Assad and his regime are a type of Shiite. Furthermore, both parties are involved in some way with the al-Qaeda movement.
   What really raised the question of whether we should get involved or not began when the Syrian government launched a chemical weapons attack on their own people with over 1,000 casualties - including innocent women, children, and elderly citizens. This concerned the U.N., due to their policy that none should possess such destructive weaponry. President Barack Obama had fabricated his own "red line" policy a year ago as well, declaring that action shall be taken once there is evidence of the use or mobilization of these weapons.
   Now that the "red line" had been crossed, Obama intended to take action. However, he chose to meet with Congress first to discuss the controversial issue. While it may be the right thing to prevent further use of chemical weapons, intervening in this conflict presents great risk; since Russia, China, and Iran - three very strong powers - are all sided with Syria's government, the al-Qaeda movement has threatened to bomb Israel should we make an attack, and Britain has left this matter for us to solve alone. So, the question now is, should we prevent future danger of chemical weapons by launching an attack, or stay out of it to avoid war and the present safety of our nation and its allies? The Congress' decision will soon be disclosed.
   Personally, I think Obama took the wrong approach about preventing chemical weapons, and also waited until it was too late - the concept of the "red line" is to establish a set of conditions that require having a distinct plan of action and hastily taking that action once the line has been crossed, so that bad incidents (like the bombing) don't happen in the first place. Therefore, if Obama wanted to consider al-Assad culpable, he should've summoned Congress before the "red line" was issued, or at least before the line was crossed (so that they'd have an immediate emergency "game plan," per se), and not waited until the bombs had actually been assembled and used. That way, the bombing may have been prevented, and we might not be tangled in the stressful dilemma we're in now.
   As far as what action to take, I myself am not entirely sure of what I think should be done now - because there are risks both ways, whether we attack or not. However, I'd rather choose to not get caught up in this; because I believe America should only involve itself in conflicts when the safety and security of our nation is directly threatened, or when one of our allies is in a sincere predicament and needs our succor.

Here's the link to my article:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/world/meast/syria-how-did-we-get-here/index.html?iid=article_sidebar