XXAmerica is in a bind of conflict right now; to be or not to be involved in Syria?
In a joint news conference in Stockholm, President Barack Obama asserted his authority to mobilize a limited military strike on Syria without congressional approval but said he is seeking congressional backing because he feels that it will have a better response.
This would be in response to alleged chemical weapon use by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against Syrian civilians.
Americans everywhere are divided on this issue.
While it is known that chemical weapons were undoubtedly used against civilians, the culprit behind the attack has not been proven.
The senseless death of innocent civilians is obviously heinous and violates long-standing norms.
The natural response is that we want to do something about this atrocity.
However, this might not be the best course of action on America’s part, particularly when looking back at 2003 when the U.S. went to war with Iraq.
The U.S. went to war with Iraq on the basis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in their possession.
Two years later, the U.S. government declared that no weapons of mass destruction were found.
According to an article from the New York Daily News, the war left 4,500 U.S. troops dead, 32,00 wounded, and over 120,000 Iraqis killed.
It was all for nothing.
According to an NBC News article, a resolution authorized by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “forbids Obama from using ground troops in Syria and allows the military response to last no longer than three months.”
While the Obama administration claims that their intention is to avoid a long-term battle in Syria, the truth is, the possible outcome of a military strike in Syria is unpredictable.
How do we know what will happen upon carrying out this attack in Syria?
The answer is simple: nobody can know.
Former CIA National Intelligence Officer Paul Pillar said on the Diane Rehm show that he thinks the Obama administration has left many wondering, “Why does America want to get involved?”
It is not America’s responsibility to fight another country’s battles.
This is the United Nations’ responsibility.
Former CIA station chief in Pakistan and former director of CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center Robert Grenier said on the show that the Obama administration has been clear in their intentions — to negotiate a solution and not cause a complete collapse of the Assad regime.
Basically, the military strike is an attempt to punish Assad’s use of chemical weapons.
But without unequivocal evidence, America may be inserting itself into a war that it cannot escape.
Thus, the U.S. would be repeating virtually the same mistake that was made in 2003 in Iraq.
The U.S. does not need to jump the gun — America can afford to wait, or let the UN handle the situation.