No easy solution in Syria

On August 21, allegations emerged that the Syrian government had carried out a chemical weapons attack on its citizens near Damascus. This news shocked the world.

Syria has been in a state of conflict since anti-government protests broke out in March 2011. Since then, both the Assad regime and rebel groups carried out countless acts of violence. The use of chemical weapons put the situation in Syria onto the forefront of international politics. A U.S. intelligence assessment reported that nearly 1,500 people died, several hundred of whom were children. The use of chemical weapons is considered a war crime, and evokes memories of the Holocaust. Ever since the Holocaust, the message “never forget” has hung in the air, reminding the world that its passivity allowed the mass murder of millions. Many have questioned whether the U.S. will intervene.

I was 10 when the United States invaded Iraq, and by the time the war was “over,” I had graduated from high school. The Iraq War and the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan have drained our country’s economy and international reputation; they have also left the American people skeptical of international military interventions.

The United States is tired of war. On Sept. 10, President Obama addressed the nation on the situation in Syria, outlining his plan. Obama stressed that he has no intention of sending troops into Syria. He also stated that the most favorable solution to the situation would be through diplomatic means, achieved with the help of Russia, Assad’s main ally. He did say that if the diplomatic path failed, the U.S. would be standing by to carry out targeted missile strikes on Syria.

I hold reservations about the use of military action. Yes, it would send a message, but we cannot predict all of the repercussions. A military strike could help the situ- ation or make it drastically worse. If the consequences were negative, would the U.S. have to intervene further?

Obama mentioned the killing of children several times in his speech, as well as the need to protect our children from living in a world where such acts occur. It might be because I am from Connecticut, but evoking the image of suffering children makes me want to do something.

Ever since Newtown, the American people have been sensitive to acts of violence, especially against children. But is it our job to protect the children of the world? Obama says yes, asking the country, “ What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?”

As an American citizen, I am not OK with doing nothing. These atrocities may not have been carried out on our soil, but this is our world too. Doing nothing, taking the passive bystander path, is not the mentality of the American people.

In this case, taking action means hoping that Russia will be able to successfully work out an agreement that has Syria hand over its chemical weapons. Here’s to hoping we are not celebrating the “end of American involvement in the Syrian war” in another decade.