Syrian Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Violations

Article from "The Washington Post" on the Syrian chemical weapons attack.

Video of President Obama's comments on the situation in Syria.

The U.S released an intelligence report regarding the suspected use of chemical weaponry in Syria last week against rebel held neighborhoods in the Damascus area. The report indicated that the chemical munitions were indeed traced back to government held positions and that there was an increase in conventional artillery fire to cover up the use of the illicit weaponry.

President Obama released a statement shown in the above video in which he states his consideration of a limited involvement policy in Syria.

As far as the factors that will ultimately decide the U.S.'s fate in Syria, I will try to summarize them as far as I understand them.

There is no inherent ideal faction in this conflict. On one side, there is the tyrannical Syrian regime which has proven itself to be consistently militaristic on the domestic front. The U.S. would be in a strange situation if it supported the same violent government that shelled Homs, its own city, and massacred the city's inhabitants. I still think about the awful images that emerged from the city of black smoke rising from damaged oil lines and room after room of dead families killed by both government and rebel snipers. If U.S. intelligence is accurate, the government must also be held responsible for the use of chemical weapons. On the other side, there is the fundamentalist rebels who have been officially recognized by the U.S. government as the legitimate representatives of the people of Syria ("BBC" talks about it in this article), but have the potential to become the next radical insurgents that the U.S. mistakenly supported. Not to mention that Russia has vocalized its support of the current Syrian government, so entering the conflict against the regime could stoke old Cold War tensions (my understanding of the different Syrian tensions and the history of the regime itself is very limited, so I recommend this article by  "The Washington Post" which offers immense clarification on the entire situation).

Two simple solutions present themselves immediately in my mind. The first (which is actually the second one I considered but it works better to talk about it first) is a limited involvement policy similar to the one that President Obama mentions in the above video. While a full scale ground war is unreasonable and unrealistic (many of those concerns are listen in this "Washington Post" article), there are other ways of intervening. I feel that the No-Fly Zone (which included air-to-ground strikes) in Libya is a perfect example of how U.S. military involvement can be effective without being totally committed. The U.S. air force disabled several key targets in the conflict that allowed the Libyan rebels to be much more expeditious in the removal of Gaddafi without as much expense in the way of lives and resources. While the overall goals would be different in a Syrian campaign, the U.S. could be similarly helpful while remaining relatively uninvolved (the word helpful being a reference to the removal of any vehicle or vessel with the potential to deliver chemical munitions). The U.S. Air Force and Navy both have the potential to disable rocket launchers (it was decided that the vehicle for delivery was a government held rocket launcher) by the use of surgical strikes and precision bombing. This would be a way to eliminate human rights violations without committing thousands of U.S. lives.

The second solution that presents itself is to remain uninvolved and not use American tax dollars or lives to fight a conflict that has no direct relevance to the United States itself. This is a fairly common opinion with arguable merit, but denotes isolationist attitudes (see remaining paragraph about why I disagree with isolationism) about American foreign policy, especially with regards to American intervention. It is my fervent opinion that human beings have a responsibility for other human beings. We, as Americans, have unified together in the society of the United States of America, but that does not exempt us from any human responsibilities to voluntarily submit our resources to the common welfare of the world. Ethnocentricity acknowledged, it is arrogant to assume that because of our forefather's success we are exempt from any responsibility regarding the situation of others especially when it involves the violation of human rights (it has long been nearly universally considered a violation of human rights to use chemical weaponry). It is also arrogant to assume we understand in the least degree what consequences should come from the fault of mankind and that we hold the power to punish by negligence and isolation as we please. Just because our government has proven more successful that others doesn't mean the citizens of one that does not should pay for the shortcomings of a system derived from imperfect men.

All of this is to say that I believe that because we have the potential to stop the violation of human rights in Syria, we have a responsibility to do so. It would be ideal if we could enforce the human rights of every human in the world, but right now all that we are able to do is halt the use of chemical weaponry in Syria, and I think it is evident that it should be a priority in the coming months to do so.