Jessie
Latter
GVPT200
24
October 2013
Response Paper #3
The Syrian Civil War broke out in
2011 because rebel forces wanted to remove President Bashar al-Assad and his
regime from power. Only after discovering that the Syrian government had been
using chemicals weapons to kill civilians did the international community, more
specifically the United States and President Obama, start talking about
humanitarian intervention. In the blog post “Words
of Mass Destruction in the Syria Debate”, Ty Solomon inquires into why, only
after the use of non-conventional weapons like WMDs, do countries like the US
and UK want to intervene in Syria? (Solomon). Ultimately, Solomon attributes
this to the taboo attached WMDs and argues that when deciding when to intervene
words like WMDs and conventional weapons should not have as much influence
because conventional weapons cause more mass destruction then chemical weapons
(Solomon). I agree with Solomon because the outrage from the international
community should not have occurred only after discovering the use of chemicals
weapons, but when the government was committing mass genocide against civilians
with conventional weapons as well. I also think that if a full-fledged humanitarian
intervention were to happen in Syria it should not be by using military force,
but by providing aid to the Syrian people in the form of goods/services.
The arbitrary
categories that we place weapons into as either conventional or WMDs makes it
seem as though the death toll when using WMDs is a lot higher and more
devastating then conventional weapons. Although this was true of the atomic
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII, the fact is that WMDs do
not cause as much mass destruction as conventional weapons do. The death toll
before the use of chemical weapons was 100,000+, while the chemical weapons
bombings only killed 1,000+ civilians. The Syrian Civil War has been going on
for two years and countries like the US knew how many civilians were dying over
there and refused to talk about intervening until they crossed the red line by
using chemical weapons. This red line should have been drawn after the first
civilian was killed, not just by chemical weapons but by conventional weapons
as well. A death is a death and the focus should not be on how that person died
but that they did at the hands of their own government.
No one wants to
have a repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan in Syria, which is why I think that if humanitarian
intervention were to occur it should not be by using military force. When the
US sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan the government underestimated the
time, money, and resources it would take to accomplish their goals there.
Although in the case of Syria it is confirmed that they do have WMDs, the US
should still not repeat past mistakes by using military force to overthrow
President Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Instead, I think the US government
should provide aid to the Syrian people in the form of goods/services because
women, men, and children are living in a country in the midst of a civil war resulting
in the destruction of homes, spreading of disease, and decline in the availability
of food and water. Using military force to overthrow the Syrian government will
not mean anything if the death toll continues to rise and a large portion of
the population is dead from a lack of access to basic necessities.
While, I agree with you and Solomon that it is questionable why the U.S. would intervene now because of the use of chemical weapons, I believe that chemical weapon, in particular saran gas, is a crueler way of killing than traditional weapons. Therefore, I believe that WMD’s are a good reason to intervene because they are not conventional and have the potential to cause a lot more chaos. I still do not believe that intervention is a good idea though because the issue does not involve the U.S. Also, I think that humanitarian help would be the best help for the Syrian people, as they are against U.S. military intervention.
ReplyDeleteHow do we judge what is a crueler way of killing someone though? Although I don't know much about how sarin gas works I do know that it is a nerve gas that kills you very quickly. I think it is more cruel to use traditional weapons because getting shot doesn't guarantee a quick death you could die right away or you could die a slow death or die from complications like disease.
DeleteThis paper is very well written and you clearly explain your point. However, whether the international community is getting involved in Syria for humanitarian reasons or because of the tabu of WMDs as long as they are doing something helpful I don't think it really matters why.
ReplyDelete