This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

My Little Diddy on Syria

Considering that my inspiration for this blog was a question posed by my girlfriend, who was looking to find out precisely what was going on in Syria, I decided that I would devote my first piece to the subject. For those who are looking for a fairly comprehensive yet succinct overview of the conflicts causes, history, and the events leading up to the recent "crisis", I recommend this article in the Washington Post.
 
The past week has seen passionate arguments for and against American military intervention in Syria, and what form such intervention would take. In retaliation for a massive chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta on August 21, launched by the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad (allegedly), the Obama Administration seeks to launch a number of cruise missile strikes to punish the regime and deter against future use of such weapons. President Obama has put this to a Congressional vote and made a speech on Tuesday regarding the issued to try and garner support.

I say allegedly, because both the rebels and the regime have pointed fingers at each other and the U.N. has confirmed, without pointing fingers on specifics, that both sides of the conflict are guilty of numerous human rights violations. Additionally, recent reporting has shown that Islamist elements of the rebels have indeed been proven to have in their possession sarin gas, provided by resurgent Al-Qaeda forces in Iraq. Finally, the evidence provided by the White House has been circumstantial and nowhere near definitive.

Regardless, the West seems convinced that the attack was Assad's doing and military strikes seemed imminent until two days ago when Russia put a diplomatic solution on the table-a deal in which Syria's chemical weapons would be placed under international control.  Russian and Syrian diplomats have put the ball in Obama's court, and while talks have engaged to begin such a process, apparently military strikes are "still on the table".

What is my take on this? Please, Mr. President, when an enemy throws you a life vest don't spit in his face out of pride.

This "crisis" has simply been the result of the President entangling himself in his own rhetoric. By needlessly calling for Assad's ouster and drawing a "red line" against chemical weapons, Obama promised something he never really wanted to give. As the article cited at the top clearly states, and any rational analysis of this situation for that matter would, military intervention in this conflict won't solve anything. In fact, it most likely will exacerbate the problem. Perhaps the White House truly felt a moral need to denounce the Assad regime, and perhaps they feel a moral obligation to act. But no matter how military action plays out, the death toll will rise. 

Should the Administration's planned limited strikes be carried out, the military balance will remain and the violence will continue. Should Assad be deposed, as some suggest needs to be done (Que McCain and Graham), the real civil war will begin as each faction of the resistance vies for control after their common enemy has been destroyed. For advocates of this plan, please stop pointing to Libya as a successful blueprint. Yes, we deposed a tyrant, but left a shattered country which faces economic stagnation and political fragmentation as the local militias that had once been united against Tripoli now have turned on each other in the interests of their respective communities. Libya, it would seem, has ceased to be a cohesive unit, and given the sectarian divides of Syria the results would not only be similar but more severe.

The only end game worth seeking out is a political settlement. Russia's diplomatic initiative, while nowhere near a final fix, might at least be a stepping stone. Hey, with Iran equally invested in this conflict, maybe it could open doors with them as well. Perhaps if America flexed some old-school, Kissinger-style diplomacy we could take a bad situation and at least get something out of it. If not, it's at least a way of avoiding the worst of bad options. A moral victory here may feel good, but it won't fix an economy or provide jobs, and it won't further any real national interest, but it will cost money and lives.

I may sound like a broken record, but that really only goes to show how one-sided this argument has become.      

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?