Should the U.S. intervene in the Syrian conflict?
Before the use of chemical weapons, most, if not all, citizens of the U.S. had no idea of
the atrocities going on in Syria. Even then, the U.S. did not involve themselves in the horrid
events going on in the country. Obama announced that if Syria were to use chemical weapons
against their citizens, then the U.S. would have to intervene. There have been a rise of questions
when Obama stated this in 2011. The U.S. should not intervene in Syria with military action
because to do so would endanger the security of Syrians. In addition, the U.S. has no secure plan
of the future of Syria if they were to intervene.
Disaster is what will happen if the U.S. approaches Syria with military action. According
to CNN, more than 100,000 people have died during the conflict. There have been massacres,
populated areas have been bombed and people have been decapitated. The feeling to intervene
with violence is heavy. Why not strike back the way they have done to their own people? It is
predicted that strikes against Bashar will not make him back down from power, but only make
"Assad would remain defiant in the face of an attack. It is not as if he is constrained now,
but he would probably step up the violence both to exert control within his country and to
demonstrate that the United States and its allies cannot intimidate him" (Fisher).
Not only would Bashar alÂAssad increase the defense and offense of his country, but he
would also be receiving additional help from his allies, meaning more weapons and soldiers
pouring into Syria. And on the other side, Syrian opposition groups would only care about killing
Shiites and Alawites and not care about...