The drums of war beat on.
War is not the answer, though it can be the solution in the correct circumstance. However, American intervention in the Syrian Civil War is not that situation.
The Syrian Civil War has waged for over two years. Approximately 100,000 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Horror stories of mass executions and multiple uses of chemical weapons have nearly drawn the United States into the conflict.
“There are over 100,000 dead from conventional weapons,” said junior and Marine Corps veteran Chris Boyle. “Why do the deaths from chemical weapons suddenly motivate us to get involved in the conflict?”
The conversation about weapons of mass destruction being used on innocents eerily parallels the very rhetoric that led us into the Iraq War in 2003.
When asked about American involvement in Syria on Aug. 20, 2012, President Obama said, “A red line for us is (if) we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
Unlike in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction have been actualized in Syria. The declassified video evidence is gut-wrenching — children convulsing involuntarily, men lying lifeless with toxins paralyzing their nerves, and helpless civilians creating makeshift gas masks out of paper cups and rubber bands.
The obligation rests on the Obama administration to prove that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces that used chemical weapons.
The rebel troops comprising the resistance to al-Assad’s regime are roving bands of militants fighting for multiple reasons. They are equal parts anarchists and Islamic militants, fractured and leaderless.
Once al-Assad is removed from leadership, the power vacuum left behind will likely ensure that these elements turn their weapons on each other. We have seen this before — we created the same situation when we removed the government in Iraq.
America is war-weary. She slumps under the weight of two wars over the last 12 years. The traditional students who comprise the base of Guilford College’s student body have lived half of their lives under the specter of war.
For these reasons, the Obama administration has been cautious about engaging in the Syrian Civil War despite calls from Republicans to align with the rebel factions.
To date, approximately 2 million refugees have sought shelter in neighboring lands due to the war. Many have entered Iraq seeking shelter, just as Iraqi civilians sought shelter in Syria during the Iraq War.
These Syrian refugees, suffering diaspora at the hands of war, are ideal candidates for Islamists to radicalize.
As a precautionary measure, the U.S. mobilized a carrier battle group to patrol off the coast of Syria in the Mediterranean Sea. In response, Russia sent several of their ships to provide support for their allies in al-Assad’s regime.
“Russia has some economic interest in Syria,” said Associate Professor of Political Science Maria Rosales. “But they are more motivated about our role as an interventionist.”
The war in Syria is an internal conflict among groups of people with unclear motives. To impose our will at this juncture is arrogance hidden behind the ruse of conducting foreign policy in a self-righteous manner.
With our involvement, Syria would move from being a contained internal conflict to a proxy war against Russia and their support of the al-Assad regime.
“All of the opposition now is united in their wanting Assad out of power,” said sophomore Omar Jasim, an Iraq native personally affected by our foreign policy. “But once Assad’s gone, what happens?
“I believe (the outcome) will be the same as Egypt, only without a stable government to intercede.”
Thankfully, world powers are working to disarm the prospect of a strike. But America should keep this in mind: with the lack of firm evidence of al-Assad’s culpability in these war crimes, our engagement in this war is not a solution. It would become a quagmire.
We have been down this road before. For once, we must learn from past failures.
