USA, CIA: Hands off Syria
On August 21, sarin gas was unleashed onto the Eastern Ghouta district just outside Damascus Syria. More than 1400 residents were killed, including over 400 children (according to US investigation). The sheer cruelty of this chemical attack, coupled with harrowing images of entire families—hastily wrapped in white linen cloth and laid out on the ground—shocked the world. As international criticism intensified against the attack, both the rebels and the Syrian government were quick to point fingers at the other. The Obama administration was quick to blame the attacks on the Assad regime, and soon began gathering Western allies and sent warships to Syria for an imminent strike. Most of the world, whether opposed or supportive of the strike, braced for harsh military action by the United States. But a series of events has muddled this tragedy into a diplomatic and military nightmare.
On Monday, the United Nations finally released a report which was unable to find hard evidence of the Syrian regime’s culpability, nor that of the rebels. Only 11 of the 20 nations at the G20 meeting last week thought that “there was damning evidence that the Syrian government’s” involvement. Many nations however, think that the Assad regime was responsible. Obama has asked for congressional approval (though if rejected, still has the power to bomb Syria under the War Powers Act).Russia has negotiated a plan with Syria to rid the government of its chemical stockpiles for subsequent destruction, in an effort to avert U.S. aggression. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed skepticism of the plan, and warned that the United States would NOT withdraw its threat of military action.As for the bombing itself, chemical depots will not be targeted as strikes will not destroy a significant portion of the stockpiles and only risks the chance of the weapons falling into the wrong hands. On the other hand, Obama has said that he would NOT target the regime leadership itself and said that “Assad wouldn’t even need to change his dinner plans.” In essence, it’s a firm slap on the wrist for the Syrian regime, attacking some military installations and so forth. Though some Americans may argue that this little punishment is necessary, the strike could end up causing much more harm than good.Striking Syria would mean that firstly, the chemical attack warranted breaching a nations sovereignty without the approval of the U.N., and secondly, that America would side with the opposition officially, even if it meant assisting terrorists who may one day turn the very same weapons against us.It has been known for some time that members of the Sunni Muslim sect of Al Qaeda have for the past year or so been sending fighters to overthrow the Syrian regime. In addition to that, an IHS Jane study found that nearly half of the 100,000 rebel fighters in Syria are "jihadists" or hard line extremists that are fighting for an Islamist state. Of these fighters, about 10,000 are affiliated with multinational terrorist organizations. There have also been multiple reports of FSA members leaving the moderates and joining jihadists, and of infighting between groups. Apart from the strike, the CIA has sent weapons to ‘moderate militants,’ but it is doubtful how they are able to vet their customers, when one in every two fighters are extremists who no doubt hold anti-Western views.Congress, weary of war, still remains bitterly undecided, although not across partisan lines. Both Harry Reid (D, NV) and John Boehner (R, OH) have endorsed strikes, while Democratic and Republican congressmen alike are expressing their opposition. This strange schism most likely resulted from the multitude of phone calls that many Congressional representatives received from war-weary constituents, as well as the dearth of American public support for a strike. In a September 9 poll conducted by uGov/Huffington Post, only 12 percent of Americans supported using airstrikes to aid rebels in Syria, while 61percent actively opposed the action. Furthermore, only nine percent of Americans think that bombing Syria would stop future chemical weapon use in Syria. With these dismal numbers, it is unlikely that Obama would gain congressional approval. Striking Syria without it could be devastating.America would do well do stay out of Syria. This would include the halting of arms transfer to Syrian rebels as well as no military action. There is no national security threat to America, and truly the number of unknown factors, mixed with abetting terrorism, should be a clear sign that not much benefit could come out of this situation.