According to leading Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, U.S. plans for military strikes on Syria may occur in tandem with support for rebel forces against Syrian President Assad. McCain says that "we still have significant concerns, but we believe there is in formulation a strategy to upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army and to degrade the capabilities of Bashar-al Assad." Such information was disclosed after a meeting with President Obama on Monday. The U.S. and several other nations have accused Assad of using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, including an August 21 attack near Damascus said to have killed over 1,400 people. According to Obama, using chemical weapons is "a challenge to the world," but he is seeking Congressional authorization before taking military action.
Apparently, several Middle Eastern nations, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have offered their military assets for taking action against Syria. According to Secretary of State John Kerry, others may follow suit. Kerry says, as well, that prospect of strike has resulted in relatively 100 defections from the Syrian military.
McCain says it would be "catastrophic" for Congress to reject the presidential authorization of U.S. military action, because "it would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and the president of the United States."
Assad has said that a regional war could occur if Syria is attacked, referring to the Middle East as a "powder keg" that could well explode. "Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of regional war exists," he says.
French President Francois Hollande's government has called for action against Syria. To such, Assad has replied: "There will be repercussions...against the French interests."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says that Moscow is unconvinced by the evidence that the Americans, British and French have brought up; "there are no facts." Russia (which is supporting the Syrian government along with China and Iran) is sending a delegation over to Washington to confer with Congress, hoping that the U.S. will reject military action.
Yemen's parliament as announced opposition to outside intervention in Syria's affairs.
This was yet another article published on the Syrian conflict, which is now the subject of daily media coverage. There is no clear bias in this article, other than that of protecting basic American interests; it is grounded solidly in fact. What it has established is that the president is a proponent of the idea of supporting Syrian rebels and is, based on this and prior knowledge, leaning towards the option of military action, even though he is seeking Congressional approval. Whether or not President Obama should proceed with military intervention is a question not of politics, for he will be harshly criticized based on whatever decision he makes; rather, it is a question of what we regard as a crime against humanity and wether or not we should intervene--as we have before. However, there are indeed laws set in place by the Geneva Convention that identify the use of chemical weapons--of which there is plentiful evidence, despite Russia's claims--as a crime against humanity. France stands for action against Syria, the United States is undecided (but leaning towards a strike, it seems), Britain voted to refrain from interference, and Russia, China and Iran are backing the Syrian government. Based on the great wealth of information to which I've access, I would say that we should--in no efforts to go to war wholesale--proceed with some form of interference. Syrian people, including refugees forced into Turkey and Syrian Americans with family members abroad, have literally, directly asked President Obama and Washington for help. Apologies if this should seem unabashedly "'Murica: World Police," but if that is no call to action, I don't know what is.
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews
No comments:
Post a Comment