Response Paper #3

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.