As we ponder the reasons for military action against Syria, there are two sayings that come to mind: “Where there’s smoke there’s fire,” and “a picture is worth a thousand words.” The latter phrase sums up why we are having this discussion in the first place. A photograph released on Aug. 21 showed the dead bodies of Syrians killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces.
Reports have put the loss of life in Syria at almost 100,000 people since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in March of 2011. The fact that Syria is resorting to using chemical weapons against its own citizens is a disturbing sign that the smoke warnings over the last few years are about to turn into a forest fire that needs to be stamped out.
The United States has stayed on the sidelines for long enough. It’s time we entered the fray despite the lack of public support thus far. It’s understandable that there is a great reluctance to intervene in Syria, especially with the bitter taste of Iraq still fresh in our mouths, but the continued escalation in Syria demands our attention.
In April the first reports of Syria using chemical weapons leaked, and by June the regime had killed 100 to 150 people using the nerve agent sarin according to the intelligence community. The Obama administration was silent on these attacks, and the American public seemed blissfully unaware, as there weren’t any published pictures of the tragedies to catch our attention. However, it’s hard to ignore the use of chemical weapons in August that killed 1,429 people, including 426 children according to various reports.
The numbers show that Assad has become more aggressive in his tactics in using chemical weapons, and the trend is on the upward swing. If this continues, by October we could expect more than 5,000 deaths from the use of chemical weapons. We can’t allow this type of aggression go unchecked. This needs to be taken care of, even though a “limited strike” — as Obama put it — still constitutes an act of war.
“This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. “Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence. We have spoken up against the unspeakable horror many times in the past. Now we must stand up and act.”
An average of 165 Syrians are being killed daily, and in the next year that figure could total 60,000. Are we really willing to sit back on our moral stance against war while thousands of innocent people are being killed? The question we should be asking ourselves is what if a few missile strikes could make a difference?
The point of our potential military intervention is to discourage the use of chemical weapons. Showing Syria and Assad that we mean business may just dissuade them from being so liberal in their use of violence. Thus far they have showed no signs of reducing their aggression towards their own people.
Another point to consider is that military action against Syria may also serve as a message to Iran. that if they cross the line on their threats toward Israel and the buildup of their nuclear program that the U.S. will respond accordingly. As Assad, Saddam Hussein and countless other violent leaders have shown, if you give them an inch, they will take a yard. The right kind of missile strikes in Syria could disable their military airports and limit their ability to use further violence on their own citizens, and if Assad happens to be killed in one of those strikes, even better.
The argument that we could end up in another full-scale conflict with yet another Middle Eastern country is legitimate. It is understandable that the American public does not have the stomach for it. It is unfortunate that the U.S. is seemingly always in the position to make these type of decisions, but that’s how it is.
In the movie “Live Free or Die Hard,” John McClane, played by Bruce Willis, is asked how he feels about having to be in tough, violent situations, and he says, “Because there’s nobody else to do it right now, that’s why. Believe me, if there were somebody else to do it, I’d let them do it, but there’s not. So we’re doing it.”
That essentially sums up the situation the U.S. is in right now with Syria and their continued use of chemical weapons. Our country doesn’t want to go war. Obama doesn’t want to go to war. But right now our country is in the best position to do something about these atrocities, as unpleasant as it might be. Besides, who else is going stand up and take action? The French? As the saying goes, “It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it.”