Intervene in Syria: for or against?
by stephanie.racine05 on September 9, 2013 - 10:29pm
There is as much ways to govern as the number of country there is in the world. As Canadians, we have the chance to live in a country that is governed by democracy. However, as we noticed during the past few weeks, Syrian people are not as lucky as we are. Indeed, the Syrian government would most likely be the author of the use of chemical weapons held against its own people.
One of Brian Stewart’s articles, Syria’s civil war: No good options and so many ‘know unknown’ is debating whether or not the United States should intervene in Syria. Basically, Brian Stewart defend the point that there is no better option than another, due to the fact that there is too much information missing to take a good and informed decision. Inter alia, nobody can anticipate what would be the reaction of the government, faced to the countries’ attack.
People that are in favor of the United States intervening in Syria argue that first of all, not going in Syria would be acting against the United States’ self-interest because to step back would hamper the credibility of the American government, who already announced its intention of interfering in the corrupted country. Moreover, as the United Nations are not able to act concretely in Syria, due to the fact that some countries are supporting the Syrian government, it is the other countries’ responsibility to act in order to bring back harmony, peace and order in Syria, and to do justice to those who have been victims of the attack. Those who second the intervention sustain that in the name of compassion, collective responsibility and security, the United States must take an action to protect the population of Syria and that the ethical principle of “do no harm” must be defended. Finally, Brian Stewart emphasizes the fact that it is the countries’ duty to punish Syria and to discourage other governments to use similar weapons. It is essential to fix limits for the future, in order to maintain peace, harmony and order, and an intervention, even as risky as it is, would be a greater good for the future of Syria, and of the whole world.
However, there are major arguments that are against an intervention from the United States in Syria. In fact, the risks of an intervention of this type are enormous, and success is by no means assured because there is little hope to settle anything and make the situation better for the Syrian people. This is where self-preservation and security comes into play; does an intervention from the United States would really do any good? The non-partisans of any interference with the Syrian conflict are arguing that sanctity of life is an important element that should be taken under consideration: many lives are taken away everyday due to wars, why should we add other deaths to it? In addition, sending American soldiers in Syria comes down to using them as a mean to bring back a sort of peace and order, and will most likely harm a lot of them. Furthermore, Syria is not alone. Indeed, Russia is a valuable ally of the Syrian government and represents a major threat to the United States. Therefore, for the United States, to go to war with Syria would also mean having to fight against Russia, and would compromise the world’s peace and order, as well as it would jeopardize the global security. To conclude, even though a lot of evidences are against the Syrian government, it has not been proven yet that the country’s government is responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Some are consequently arguing that it would be an injustice to attack the Syrian government and to punish it for something we are not actually sure it did.
In my opinion and based on the arguments presented on both sides, even though I strongly believe in sanctity of life and attach a great importance to the preservation of the world’s peace, I think that an intervention in Syria would be a greater good than to let this attack unpunished. I believe it is of utmost importance to do justice to the victims of this terrible event, and to ensure that these weapons will never be used again by any other country, government or group. It is of our collective responsibility to act for the benefit of our future world, even if it implies to do sacrifices today. I other words, in my opinion, an intervention in Syria is, without a doubt, necessary because we cannot, under any circumstances, let such an act happen without acting to show our disagreement with the Syrian government, and our support for the Syrian people.
However, this decision is not mine. Will the United States prefer to preserve the world’s order, or do their belief in our collective responsibility will be stronger?
Stewart, Brian. “Syria's civil war: No good options and so many 'known unknowns'.” CBC News 3 Sep. 2013: World. Web. 3 Sep. 2013.