Syria, or "Have we learned nothing?"

President Obama has been campaigning for us to bomb Syria. For some days the Obama administration has been talking about how they believe that President Assad of Syria has used chemical weapons on his people recently as part of his military operations attempting to quell the rebellion in his country. Syria has been embroiled in a civil war for a couple of years now.

Obama said back in December that:

 “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable." (source)

Once it was determined that Assad did use chemical weapons against his people, Obama was forced to begin preparations to carry out "consequences" against Assad. The administration said that their plans were to place "no boots on the ground", but rather to just send bombs into Syria. There are many problems with this:

1. By attacking Assad and his forces, we are by default supporting the rebel forces. The problem here is that the rebel forces are strongly linked to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda of course is an active enemy of the United States. Therefore by opposing Assad we are supporting our enemies. What's even more confusing is that we have already been providing aid to the rebel forces.

2. While our bombs are always targeted with the latest technology, there is bound to be collateral damage. There will be innocents unintentionally killed by the US if bombs are launched.

3. Assad's regime has a few fairly powerful allies. When I say fairly powerful I mean China, Russia, and Iran. All of these countries support Assad to some extent. Do we really want to attack someone who is supported by them? There were some panicked thoughts flying around the internet last week that Obama was going to start World War 3. I know it seem unlikely, but we as a nation have this idea that another World War will not happen any time soon. Obviously this is a very in-depth issue but I believe that peace in the world is far more tenuous than we would like to believe.

4. The distinction Obama has drawn of chemical weapons being "unacceptable" comes off feeling a little arbitrary. The attack referenced by the Obama administration killed a little less than 1500 people. While that certainly is terrible and tragic, total casualties in the civil war are above 100,000. The fact that America has not become involved in the face of so much evil and death until one attack that "crossed the line" seems to say that we don't care THAT you kill people, just HOW you kill people. Go ahead and kill them if you're using guns or explosives, but chemical weapons are off limits.


So in the face of all of this, why did the Obama administration start advocating bombing Syria? Their reasoning that chemical weapons are unacceptable in warfare stems from the Geneva Conventions. The particular Geneva Convention that deals with chemical warfare came into being in 1929. Warfare has changed a considerable amount since 1929. Regardless of advances in technology however, the fact remains that warfare kills combatants and innocents no matter how it is conducted. This fixation on so-called "inhumane" ways of killing people doesn't particularly matter. Does a soldier care if he was killed via bleeding out from a bullet hole or via asphyxiation from some gas? Does a civilian care if they were killed via a stray bomb or via some bio-chemical weapon?

Yes, there are some terrible side effects of various chemical weapons that leave permanent damage to survivors. For that matter, the same could be said of exploding weapons or depleted uranium ammunition. As well, think of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. How are chemical weapons any worse than the methods of warfare the United States used in those cases? 

The impression that I have is that the Obama administration is considering attacking a country for the president's reputation. Obama made that so-called "red line" statement back in December that it would be unacceptable for Assad to use chemical weapons and that there would be consequences if he did. Well, now it looks like he has. What should Obama do? Clearly his opinion is that he should start bombing in order to stay true to his word. He can't look weak by not following through on his promise of consequences.

That particular idea actually showcases weakness. There are times when having to swallow your words is the right thing to do. Obama was wrong to make the sweeping declaration he made in December. The right thing to do, the strong thing to do, is to acknowledge the fact that he was wrong. Proceeding on a course without regard to the consequences just so as to not appear weak shows that he is, in fact, weak. A strong man knows how to admit failings.

The truth of the matter is, the situation in Syria has no good solution, at least no good solution that the US can help implement. Our military involvement in the civil war would necessitate helping one side, and as much as we like a good heroic story there are no heroes here. Neither side is good. Neither side is friendly to us.

Yesterday and today the idea of Assad turning over his chemical weapons to Russia has been floated and supported, most notably by Vladimir Putin. It is possible that Obama will be willing to use this idea to save face while not attacking Syria. Time will tell, but it is telling that this idea was not one advocated by the administration until Putin supported it. Diplomatic relations were not the go-to idea. Bombs were.


This whole situation reminds me of when the United States supported a rebellion in another region in the Middle East back in the late 1970s and 1980s. The government forces were supported by the Soviet Union, and in our Cold War wisdom we were willing to give money and weapons to anyone rebelling against the USSR's allies. The war was in Afghanistan. The rebel groups were called the Mujahideen. One young man involved in the Mujahideen was named Osama Bin Laden. Twelve years ago today he orchestrated a devastating terrorist attack on the United States. This is our legacy of involvement in Middle Eastern wars. This is what happens when we meddle in affairs that are too complicated for us to know the results of our interference. This is what happens when we support militant extremists.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Have we learned nothing?