Why Syria needs U.S intervention


Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






We see Syria on the headlines today and hear the voices in our local and global news describing the horrors the Syrians have to undertake each day. Whether that horror is the latest statistic of mass civilian populations being murdered,caught in the crossfire of battles, or the latest news on the Syrian government dropping chemical weapons that were banned in accordance to the Geneva Protocols of 1925. But what is really going on there and why did this civil disorder break out?
The people of Syria are no stranger to war and destruction. We see mass crusades of war refugees trying to flee from their mother country in attempt to not be consumed by the ravaging monster that is war. A census published by the UN in 2016 estimated that around 13.5 million Syrians were in need of international aid, both in and out of the country. The pre-war population of Syria was a healthy 22 million citizens. Until recently, our government had been providing the Syrian Freedom fighters with arms and training to keep the fight against al-Assad and his security forces. We have since stopped supporting FSA (officially) both in training and financial support due to our current presidential administration removing former President Obama’s policies which included the United States support for the rebels.
Just a few (…) ago however, President Trump along with France, and Britain launched a joint military operation to bomb suspected Syrian military installations that withheld chemical weapon caches and other valuable military assets. This was in retaliation to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his actions of dropping banned chemical weapons on a defenseless civilian population “These are not the actions of a man,” President Trump stated in his television address. “These are the crimes of a monster instead”. Was it right? No, I do not believe that any action that results in wartorn country to be the subject to more destruction is “right”. However, it needed to be done.
To me, it comes down to an argument about morals. Was it right that we launched an attack on a country that we are not even at official war with and possibly starting even more fires than there currently are? I would usually say no to that as well. But when a government or a man decides to launch chemical weapons upon a defenseless civilian population that is where I say yes, we need to intervene. To be frank, it is disgusting that we as the human race still have these tragedies. The countless lives that have been lost to these weapons are too much to put into words. Not to mention the lives that will be affected even after they were lucky enough to survive the initial contact. What scared people the most (including me at one point) was actually not the bombing themselves, but the chance that Russia would take action for what we did to a country that was under their protection. Do I know what will happen? Of course I don’t. But I can leave you with this: Do you think that the superpowers of the world want to break the longest age of peace ever to be in human existence? I would say no. Even so, that does not justify us to ignore what the Syrian people are being subjected to.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Comment

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Navigate Right
Navigate Left
Why Syria needs U.S intervention