By Trevor Maloney
Editor-in-Chief
One cannot help but feel deep sadness and frustration over the ongoing conflict in Syria. As has been reported by The New York Times and many other news organizations, the American intelligence community has proven that the government of Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against its own people. Much of the international news has been fixated on the fated response of the Americans. On Saturday, August 31, 2013, President Barack Obama sent a proposal to the American Congress asking them to authorize the use of American military force against the Assad regime.
Many in the international community do not wish to engage in another military conflict in the Middle East. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 53 per cent of the American public thinks the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian Civil War. Given the controversial wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is understandable why many in America and the rest of the world would be weary of another war in the Middle East.
Yet, while there are many reasons as to why military conflict in Syria should be avoided, little else seems to be capable of dissuading the Assad regime to step down or at least to stop their use of chemical weapons.
Russia and China have proven incapable of meeting this moral challenge by remaining an obstacle in the United Nations and in other diplomatic discussions. The House of Commons has voted against Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal for military action, and other countries like Germany and Turkey are reticent to such action at best. The Arab League, however, has signaled to the United Nations that action should be taken against the Assad regime.
In any case, this challenge falls at the doorstep of the rest of the international community.
The fact remains that there are hundreds of thousands of Syrians dying at the murderous hands of the Assad regime, by the use of some of the most heinous weapons, those, which use has been internationally condemned, and yet there has not been decisive action taken against his regime.
It should be noted that the scope of military action would be a limited response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Such actions would not be a part of a larger strategy or campaign to aid the side of the Syrian Islamic Front, otherwise known as “the Rebels”.
Of course military action has its disadvantages too. Those who caution against it point to the likelihood of a quagmire, a difficult situation that is hard to get out of, as has marred many recent military endeavors in the Middle East. The risk of a quagmire is there, but it is less of a risk than having Assad assume there will be no consequences for the inhumane slaughtering of his people.
There is also a great risk that civilians could be among the causalities, and while military action would be used to prevent further causalities by the Assad regime, this argument to me stands as one of very few reasons why military action should not be used. Whichever way this issue is examined, no one wants to see innocent lives lost as a result of military engagement by the international community.
This, however, does not change the fact that something must be done, and unfortunately, Assad has left the world with no other choice but to take limited, but strong and decisive action against his regime.
Those who argue against military action fail to realize that inaction is a form of passive appeasement of the immoral practices of the Assad regime against its people. To only verbally condemn these acts is not enough. Talk is cheap.
With no adequate response to such blanket violations of human rights, those in the free world who claim to uphold themselves to the ideals and standards of human rights will not only lose general credibility in the eyes of the world, but will also lose credibility to combat such problems in the future.
Many Syrians who suffer under the threat of violence are undoubtedly hoping for help from the rest of the world, but they have only been aided with inconsequential statements and platitudes thus far. Their pleas have been met with a proverbial silence, one that runs the risk of drowning out the desperate cries of a people.
If there is one silver lining in this situation, it is that the use of military force, even when it is seen as the only viable short-term remedy, is so reluctantly endorsed. While this is a testament to the international community’s commitment to peace, they should not let their reluctance be taken for impotence or weakness.
Assad has shown us that he is not willing to resolve this conflict peacefully. The time then for action is now.
Trevor Maloney, class of 2015, is a Law and Politics major from West Palm Beach, Florida, United States.
Talk is cheap, but actions have consequences, if morality (or justice if you will) is attained by immorality (or unjust acts) then I suggest Plato’s Apology for the understanding of Justice.
Bringing it down to morality alone already ignores the political and economic agendas of those willing to go into action. Politics (and more recently I discovered, economics) does not work this way. There many interesting things to consider, before considering a limited narrow military response.
I appreciate your article’s angle on the topic and find the imagery quite striking but a more critical view lies in the following; The Folly of Military Action in Syria.
If something must be done, it is helping the people and not a side of the war, which over the last 2 years has already been influenced by many foreign governments, each with their own agenda in which morality is not on top of the list.