66°
UMass Boston's independent, student-run newspaper

The Mass Media

The Mass Media

The Mass Media

Syria’s reign of terror

Would+military+intervention+curb+violence+in+Syria%3F
Would military intervention curb violence in Syria?

Since 2011, Syria’s bloody civil war has claimed the lives of over 100,000 people. Recent claims of chemical warfare being used against the rebels have caused an international sensation and even talk of military intervention. In case you don’t know, here is a brief review of the Syrian conflict:

  • The Assad family has had control of the Syrian government for over four decades.
  • 2 million people have fled the nation and live in shantytowns. There are 150,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan alone.
  • According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 56 journalists have been killed in Syria, almost half of them freelance journalists.
  • News of chemical attacks has been spreading for some months. Doctors Without Borders confirms they have treated 300 people exposed to chemical weapons.
  • Secretary of State John Kerry claims to have evidence of hair and tissue samples proving the presence of sarin, a chemical nerve gas used in a brutal attack in Damascus that Kerry stated killed more than 1,400 people.
  • Before an inspection committee could arrive in Damascus, the whole area of attack was bombed, burning away all the evidence.

Since 2011, there have been three attempted UN non-military sanctions against Syria on account of Assad’s ruthless behavior. Each of those attempts was vetoed by both China and Russia. Through the UN’s foolish structure that allows countries on its permanent security council to veto any motion, Assad had ample time without fear of consequences to ravage his nation. 
China and Russia deemed that the sanctions, which would have curtailed international trade and foreign investments, would have been too economically irritating. But there is another side to that: China and Russia are also selling weapons to Syria. Additionally, Russia has a naval base in Syria, which is its only presence in the Mediterranean. 
President Obama has been receiving a huge amount of criticism (again) for his seemingly warmongering attitude. After Kerry, who for some reason has yet to reveal his evidence, came out against the attack, Obama was almost immediate in his desire to send troops to Syria. Luckily, his more intelligent advisers told him how disastrous that decision would be, so he passed his appeal to Congress.
Because it has been abundantly clear that Congress does not want to intervene, President Obama has asked for further delays on the already late vote. According to a thinkprogress.org analysis, out of total of 416 Representatives, 242 of them have stated they are opposed to military strikes or lean towards voting against them. Only 40 have stated their support or are likely to vote yes. Massachusetts has five out of eight opposing and three with unknown intentions.
Any military actions in Syria would be unwarranted and put the security of the nation at stake. Think about the last time we went to war due to claims that devastating weapons existed in a foreign nation and how much violence towards the U.S. has come about since the beginning of the War on Terror.
Members of Congress have been playing with the military like it is a toy, without any regard for the devastating consequences to the economy or the general hatred for the U.S. that grows in the Middle East. War does not solve war. If there is even a right for other nations to interfere, how would a bombing campaign or sending troops fix anything?
As Syria has agreed to surrendering their chemical weapons, more lawmakers are less likely to vote on attacks. It would be better to try Assad and members of his regime as war criminals rather than to increase strife that is already fierce enough.