A US Attack on Syria

757

In September 2013, it looked like the United States was about to become militarily involved in Syria. The introduction of chemical weapons had crossed a boundary of some sort, a line that most citizens of the US didn’t understand. Suddenly President Obama was going to Congress, asking them to weigh in on the possibility of a declaration of war. British Prime Minister Cameron went to parliament for the same reasons. Israel continued to test missiles by the border, and the rest of the world held its breath.  Then everything was put on hold. Russia convinced Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, an act the government had previously refused to adhere to. The likelihood of the US and other countries joining the war in Syria diminished greatly, and citizens everywhere breathed a sigh of relief.

Since the beginning of the war, the White House and Congress have given warnings of intervention, making threats of red-lines and statements about Americas need to assert itself as a protector of human rights. Throughout all, constituents have steadfastly rejected any possibility of militant involvement in Syria. The cry seems to be: “Oh no! Not again!” It is well-agreed upon that US involvement in Syria would not be effective in ending the war, and would be unnecessarily costly. What would a world involvement in Syria really look like? What are the reasons for taking a stand, and why are they so forcibly opposed?

Official news from the White House is that “the purpose of an attack will be to deter the Assad regime from using chemical weapons against its citizens while ‘degrading’ its future capacity to do so.”(Klare, Nation). But those who favor an attack have cited various other reasons as well. One is the re-establishment of the US’s role of being a major world power in the perception of other countries. The US has helped out in many situations with civilian casualties and human rights concerns in the past, and many supporters of US involvement see this as being a priority. Other reasons are to reassure US allies in the region, make sure that the opposition doesn’t turn into an extension of al-Qaeda, and the need to protect the US’ geopolitical needs in the Middle East.

What would an attack on Syria look like? Most likely the US would begin with utilizing drone warfare. The US wouldn’t want to strongly support one side because the sides are so convoluted, instead they would start by attacking technology bases instead of military personnel. Before Syria agreed to surrender their chemical weapons, the US would locate and destroy them using the highly-accurate Tomahawk rockets. It is incredibly unlikely that the US would send troops overland, instead relying on aerial attacks. Primarily targets would be individual scientists and leaders. This could be effective because the US could take out members of the Assad government it deemed dangerous, as well as terrorist members of the opposition forces.

At best, the US majority is hesitant about anything other than a humanitarian involvement. A survey conducted on September 10^th by the New York Times to over a thousand US adults found that 62 percent of the people believed that the US should not take a leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international conflict. Citizens seem to think that what we’ve learned from Iraq is that the US should not try to change dictatorship or democracy, and should mind its own business. The majority of people believe that chemical weapons have been used by the government of Syria, and that this poses a threat to American security. We believe that crimes against humanity have been occurring in Syria. But the drawbacks far outweigh the merits of a war in Syria. 79% of Americans feel that the Obama administration has not explained goals clearly enough (NewYork Times) Many believe that though an aerial attack would be somewhat effective, it would lead to a lengthy and costly larger issue,that would become a more widespread war with other parts of the Middle East.

Talks of a US attack on Syria have been put on hold since the Assad government agreed to turn over their chemical weapons. Even if they had not, it is doubtful that any declaration of war would have passed through Congress with such little support from US constituents. According to the majority of the US, military involvement in Syria is not the solution.

"American Views on Intervention in Syria." New York Times Online. New York Times and CBS, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Klare, Michael T. "Why the Push for Syrian Intervention Is About More Than Just Assad | The Nation." Syria| The Nation. The Nation, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

Tracy, Marc. "The New Republic." New Republic. New Republic, 8 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.