Syria Crisis and US intervention
It is the people with the power that I believe hold the key to extreme change. They ‘call the shots’. This week the US intervened in the civil war that has been taking place in Syria for about six years. Their reason for doing so was after the opposition by Syrians of an international law which bans chemical weapons from entering warfare, whether civil or between countries. A chemical weapon was mysteriously fired through an airstrike in Syria this week which obviously caught the eye of America. That attack crossed ‘the red line of lines not to be crossed’ as Obama once described it during his presidency. US had agreed to not intervene in this civil war and allowed Syria and Russia to ‘sort out their issues’. So the bigger question is, what does this war suddenly have to do with the US? My answer would be: the US puts their nose in everybody’s business. So why not now? But, there are a lot of valuable reasons that the US had to take such an action.
I’ve read many articles, one published in The Guardian titled ‘Trump’s change of heart isn’t reassuring, it’s profoundly disturbing’. They refer to Trump’s campaign trail in which he stated that his solution to the Syria crisis was simply to ‘take out the terrorists’. He constantly spoke harsh words about immigrants and even a few weeks after taking office placed a ban on immigrants coming into the country from Syria and other muslim countries. In a sense, Trump was basically trying to guard out America from these people that are making terrorist attacks and creating havoc in other parts of the world. His attempt, I believe, was simply to protect Americans and allow the Syrians to stay where they are and keep the ‘chaos’ to themselves. In other words, you stay there and i stay here and don’t bring your problems over here. So what caused Trump’s ‘change of heart’? I believe it was a necessary response that needed to happen and what better country than the powerful America. If America likely did not respond it would have probably been ‘a course of unparalleled isolationism in its modern history’. To me, this made sense. Afterall, silence does means consent. If America had remained silent about the issue and remained isolationist, it would have meant they are okay with what is happening which should not be so. Send them a message. Let them know they are fighting a battle that they cannot win. When the ‘big dog’ steps into the picture all the ‘little dogs’ will stop barking. And that to me is the importance of US intervention. We can liken this to protests that take place frequently in America due to inequality of gender, race, sexuality etc. Though they may not be as violent as a missile attack, they have the same effect. At some point, someone has to stand up to the enemy and show them that it is not okay to kill hundreds of innocent people.
Also, I believe this was another way for Trump to solidify his stance that he is against terrorists. Whether or not this will help America against terrorism however is unsure. Places with severe civil wars like Syria are labelled breeding grounds for terrorists, in the sense that they provide ungoverned spaces for terrorists to operate. With these continued operations, it allows for increased risk of terrorist attacks for other countries, including America. I think Trump’s intervention to send a message to the Syrian dictator is a way of interrupting/ calming down the war. It is a message to show them to ‘simmer down’. For Trump, that is one step closer to reduce terrorism both in America and around the world. Some might argue that the way he went about it by creating even more unrest through missile attacks was wrong, but as one writer puts it ‘when it serves the interest of a great power, morality is a footnote’. I guess to Trump, that was the most sudden and direct message he could have sent to prove his point as a global super power. His message screams that ‘America will no longer tolerate non sense’.
Many people are against Trump’s action of sudden intervention as it raises questions of morality and ethics. It is a very tricky situation. I strongly believe however that if you have the power to your advantage, you should use it the best you can on the world stage to end senseless violence. If that is the way Trump sees fit, then maybe he does have a point.