Griffin Johnston, 4th period, U.S. Involvement in Syria

           For two years, the civil war in Syria between the Syria Regime, headed by Bashar al-Assad, and the Rebel forces seeking more political freedom and the ousting of Assad, has persisted. This civil war falls under the category of what is known as the Arab-Spring, which consists of a series of political and social reforms (and sometimes violent conflicts) usually to rid a country of a dictator and to put in place a democracy. The recent conflicts in Libya and Egypt are examples of this. However, the recent use of chemical weapons in Damascus—the use of Serin Gas that was allegedly ordered by Assad on August 21, 2013—that has killed more than 1,300 people has lead the U.S. to more seriously consider intervening using military force. According to an article in Fox News, President Obama is seeking to gain the support of Congress to carry out a military response to the chemical attacks. The article also stated that the only foreign support that the U.S. would receive if they carried out an assault was from France (the British Parliament has voted against military action). Assad and the Syrian Regime deny that they had ordered the use of the Serin Gas. Congress will not vote until its members return from their recess on September 9. However, as Secretary of State, John Kerry, said, “Obama has the authority to launch retaliatory strikes with or without Congress’ approval.”

            There are multiple controversies that have been prompted by this conflict, a major one being, whether the U.S. would look weak if they did not respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria (regardless of who used them). Moreover, would neglecting to respond make it seem as though using chemical weapons is not a harsh crime? In an article in the New York Times, Interior Minister Manuel Valls said on French radio, “We cannot leave this crime against humanity unpunished.” The article also says that, “ a failure to act against Syria might embolden enemies of Israel like Iran and Hezbollah.” Secretary of State John Kerry stated that by the U.S. responding using military force, it would enforce the message to the enemies of Israel that the use of, in his words, "a nuclear device" is intolerable.

            Another dilemna that the U.S. faces is whether helping the rebel forces defeat Assad and the Syrian regime would help Syria in the long run. According to an article in the BBC News Western governments have been hesistant to help the rebels fight against the Syrian Regime because of the certain Islamic extremists groups helping the rebels. One of these is the Nusra Front, a group that the U.S. has defined as a “terrorists organization.” If the U.S. were to help defeat the Syrian Regime, who would rise to power and will the group who rises to power help the country out of conflict?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/02/obama-faces-renewed-international-opposition-on-syria-while-trying-to-win-us/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218