In case you are one of the many people who are confused about what is going on in Syria, let me bring you up to speed: There is a civil war, and the United States is considering intervening. Conflict between government forces and rebels began after the Syrian government responded violently to civilian protests in 2011. Since then, protesters have fought back. Now, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected use of chemical weapons against protesters has the U.S. considering launching limited strikes against Syria.
But if the U.S. intervenes, it would only result in more bloodshed. An airstrike could instill fear in the Syrians and potentially deter Assad from using any more chemical weapons on his people. But despite cruise missiles’ fairly good accuracy, technology does not always function the way we want it to. So if the U.S. starts lobbing missiles into Syria, civilian casualties are a possibility we must contend with. Photos of innocent Syrian women and children killed and maimed by U.S. missiles would not do wonders for our international reputation. Our intervention might also be seen as an affront to Russia and Iran, which are allies of Assad, and could prompt the two countries to aid the Syrian president. Such a development could result in a much longer war than we intend, and would take up a lot of our time and resources.
If we don’t intervene, however, we would be seen as standing idly by as Assad uses chemical weapons in a blatant breach of Geneva Convention protocols. So what is America to do? I insist that it makes the most sense not to intervene. If we did intervene, the killing would most likely not stop, but increase. Also, would our intervention set a standard for the future? Would the U.S. have to intervene in every civil war in the world from then on? We have the most powerful military in the world, but that does not make us responsible for every country experiencing internal strife, especially in areas troubled by religious and ethnic conflict that the U.S. alone cannot resolve. It is not up to us to intervene in Syria. Further, we have not seen any unimpeachable proof of who launched the chemical attacks in Damascus. The United Nations is still investigating the attacks, and we have no partners in the global arena who are supporting us. So why the rush to judgment?
I also question whether we have the time to intervene in Syria. The U.S. is currently suffering from many internal problems, such as a huge budget deficit, problems in the education system, a widening gap between social classes, high unemployment and urban crime. We have enough to worry about at home.
At this point the United States is not under attack. But for every action there is a reaction. Using military force in Syria would take up time, drain us of our resources, create further adversity between us and Iran and Russia and quite possibly be another “shot heard ‘round the world.” Let’s sit this Mideast conflict out.
Meredith Berger is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Her columns run Mondays.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 9 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 14 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
