Recently Syria has been on global TVs for all wrong reasons. It is almost nicknamed land of fate following the extensive peace provocations in the country. It has been the point of comparison for nations renowned for insecurity through terrorism and tribal wars. Children with bear terrorism knowledge closely identifies with Syria as they consistently hear about the country in TVs and radios. It is a bad example of nation that children would wish to grow up in. In fact, not many people can tell about the origin of war in Syria. However, people have consistently thought of how the state of insecurity may be dealt with in the country. The most current cause of insecurity is the existence of Chemical weapons in the country. The United States and other UN supporters have arguably been against manufacturing and use of chemical weapons.
The fate of Syria’s acts of violence is of extensive concern to the United States. This is because the effects of the war would spill to neighboring nations such as Israel. The United States finds it right to fight for peace among Syria civilians. Although, it is wise to counter terrorism in Syria, the repercussions would be dire as innocent people would be killed in the process. Production of chemical weapons is a sensitive problem that requires extensive concern and should be handled with exclusive care and control by relevant bodies.
Knowledge on what is happening in Syria is paramount in coming up with an analysis of what should happen incase chemical weapons still exist in the country. I have personal understanding of the country as I have been there several times for visits. My parents are Palestinians therefore I have excellent ground of understanding the behaviors of Syria citizens on the basis of their cultural background. I have an excellent ground to help me understand the civil unrest that has been taking place in the country. I believe that most of the unrests being experienced in the country is as a result of cultural understanding for the citizens (Brooks, 2013). Although, these challenges are alarming to Syrians and entire globe the United States should not intervene.
Despite the detailed argument made above, there are other people who have contrary arguments. These are individuals who pose arguments that the United States should not interfere with Syria. Below are some of the arguments that may prevent interference of the United States with the status of Syria.
There are various reasons why the United States should not be allowed to enter Syria. The first is based on the argument that war is the last resort. This means that war should come after every other factor has been applied and it has failed. Syria should be warned through all means to try and deal completely with this problem. This argument is supported by Bennis who argued that Syria has not interfered with the security of the United States in any way. The United States should let Syria remain comfortable with no interruption since activities for the United States remain safe (Bennis, 2013). The United States should react only if Syria directly interferes with its security.
The other argument is that intervention of United States to the welfares of Syria would cause other conflicts. There would arise of civil wars in the world as well as regional war for power between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Bennis also supports this by anticipating that there will be a global war of words between Russia and the United States. Also, there would sectarian war that would arise between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims as well as war against the policy that was formulated over nuclear weapons between the United States and Iran (Bennis, 2013).
The issue of morality would also be considered vital before the United States embarks on the move of attacking Syria. In such cases, innocent lives are lost as there are no extremely fundamental means to attack the fighting troops directly. This is compared to the killings that were witnessed in Kosovo in 1999 where innocent civilians were shot (Bennis, 2013).
There is further argument that the UN should intervene in control through conducting global search for chemical weapons. This would help in determining the true culprits of chemical weapons. The United States should not attack Syria without consent of the International Criminal Court that Syria possesses chemical weapons (Bennis, 2013).
There are various repercussions that that would come in if the United States was allowed to gain entry to the United States. There is extremely great issue of morality that goes with these kinds of killings. Merciless killings will be an element in the United States dictating inhumanity in the country. She also analyses that war between the United States and Syria would cause farther wars (Bennis, 2013). This is an indication that the globe will be in unrest if the Syria is provoked into war.
According to Zakaria Chemical weapons are renowned to be among the most powerful weapons renowned on earth. Therefore, they require a counter that would match them. The United States is renowned as the global superpower. Therefore, it has the required potential to deal with enemies of peace like Syria. The United States is capable of securing the nation by eliminating any force that may encourage manufacturing of chemical weapons. The United States’ troops are well trained to deal with such threat of peace (Zakaria, 2013). They have adequate knowledge on various kinds of weapons making them most suitable to deal with the unrest that is taking place in Syria.
There is further argument that dealing with any issue, experience is paramount. This is a situation where the party being requested for solution has ever experienced such issues in the past and handled them accordingly. The United States has previously dealt with civil unrests in countries like Iraq and has threatened to deal with Iran following manufacturing of chemical weapons (Zakaria, 2013). Therefore, the country has the needed techniques to deal with issues of insecurity through presence of chemical weapons in Syria. It previously dealt with Al Qaeda which was the main terrorism organization threatening peace in Iraq under leadership of Osama bin Laden (Brooks, 2013). Containing such people signifies potential to deal with such elements linked to insecurity in the world.
Also, it would be frustrating to the United States to give up on a war it already began against terrorism. It has always requested Iran to stop manufacturing chemical weapons to a point of threatening the country for war. If the United States does not counter the situation in Syria, it will have given countries like Syria an opportunity to continue manufacturing chemical weapons. This means the United States will have lost its fight against chemical weapons.
The president of the United States declared production of chemical weapons as “red line”. This is an indication that the country as the global superpower has to prevent any country from manufacturing such weapons. The United States has declared possession of chemical weapons against protection for antiterrorism in the world (Ghitis, 2013). Therefore, the United States has the role of ensuring the globe is safe against terrorism and chemical weapons are among the main weapons that have to be put out of terrorist hands to secure the globe.
This move would be extremely influential to global security. The United States will have set pace for nations willing scrap terrorism in the world. It will be an excellent platform to educate other nations on the need to eliminate chemical manufacturing. These countries are vehemently significant in global economy with the United States being the global business leader and Syria located in Middle East which is renowned of oil production (Holmes, 2013).
Weaknesses of counterarguments
It may be difficult to determine the fate of the United States in war against chemical weapons on the basis of the lost war against chemical weapons in other nations. The inability of the United States to deal with the situation in Syria does not guarantee failure to deal with the problem in other nations.
There is an argument that the United States is experienced in handling cases of terrorism. However, their experience does not guarantee success in Syria. Civil war in the country is led by top officials such as Assad making it extremely difficult for the United States to intervene.
Strengths of counterarguments
Involvement of the US in dealing with cases of chemical weapons manufacturing is an extremely useful element. The US is an extremely fundamental organ in dealing with issues of insecurity in the world. It is impossible to ignore the value of the United States in war against terrorism. There is no way the United States will fail in its war against terrorism a war it already began.
Raising red flag by the United States against chemical weapons is a strong element to dictate that all parties in the globe should participate in war against production of chemical weapons. The United States is world’s superpower and its ability is beyond any ignorance. Therefore, drawing the red line means ability to deal with the issue of chemical weapons production.
There is need to control production of chemical weapons. The United States should not intervene in control of Syria over production of chemical weapons. However, counter move may be extremely sensitive as it may cause instability to Syria as well as the United States. The globe will also have an impact if this ill practice is countered in the wrong way. The security of the majority should be taken seriously without extensive delay for merciless killing for innocent people. However, farther research should be done on how the United States may get into a consensus with Syria to end the manufacturing of chemical weapons. Security for the few guilty individuals should not compromise the wellbeing of the larger innocent population. Despite the unethical tendency of the chemical weapons dealing with the issue would be expensive to Syria as well as the entire world.
Bennis, Phyllis. "Talking Points: Why We Shouldn't Attack Syria - IPS." Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment - Institute for Policy Studies. 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Brooks, David. "One Great Big War." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 29 Aug. 2013. Web. 1 Sept. 2013.
Ghitis, Frida. "Opinion: 5 reasons the U.S. must intervene in Syria." CNN.com. 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Holmes, John. "Does the UN's Responsibility to Protect necessitate an intervention in Syria?” The Guardian. 28 Aug. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Zakaria, Fareed. "Obama Team Has Mishandled Syria.” CNN.com. Cable News Network, 01 Sept. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.