By Daniel Harder, 9/12/2013
Here are the top 5 national security interests which the United States has in Syria:
1: It is a threat to our national security if we do not enforce the international norms and laws on the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction. It would mean that America does not back up its claims or honor its word. This would result in a major escalation of chemical weapons use around the world, and could even inspire Al Qaeda to acquire and use such weapons here in America.
2: US inaction in Syria will embolden Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah to build, acquire, stockpile, and use weapons of mass destruction against America and our allies such as Israel and South Korea.
3: US intervention will support our allies in the region, such as Israel, Jordan, and Turkey.
4: US intervention in Syria will cause extremism to rise less quickly, and the result will be more moderate pro-American Syrians, who could potentially make the nation of Syria into an ally.
5: US intervention in Syria will weaken or cripple the Assad Regime, allowing the moderate FSA Rebels to take over the country, paving the way for a transition to democracy.
Here are the top 5 national security interests which the United States has in Syria:
1: It is a threat to our national security if we do not enforce the international norms and laws on the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction. It would mean that America does not back up its claims or honor its word. This would result in a major escalation of chemical weapons use around the world, and could even inspire Al Qaeda to acquire and use such weapons here in America.
2: US inaction in Syria will embolden Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah to build, acquire, stockpile, and use weapons of mass destruction against America and our allies such as Israel and South Korea.
3: US intervention will support our allies in the region, such as Israel, Jordan, and Turkey.
4: US intervention in Syria will cause extremism to rise less quickly, and the result will be more moderate pro-American Syrians, who could potentially make the nation of Syria into an ally.
5: US intervention in Syria will weaken or cripple the Assad Regime, allowing the moderate FSA Rebels to take over the country, paving the way for a transition to democracy.
Now, as for the moral and ethical reasons for intervening, they would include the following:
1: The United Nations' doctrine known as "The Responsibility To Protect," which says it is the international community's obligation to step in and save people from genocide or mass slaughter.
2: Invoking Article 5 of NATO, in order to retaliate against Assad's regime for firing at our NATO ally, Turkey, on numerous occasions last year.
What could happen if America fails to intervene in Syria with military action against Assad?
1: Al Qaeda groups could rise to power, overthrow Assad, and then possess his huge chemical weapons stockpiles.
2: Assad could remain in power, brutally murdering millions of people, and releasing Sarin Gas all over the country, possibly igniting a regional war involving all of the Middle East nations, endangering Israel, Jordan, and Turkey.
3: Assad could give his chemical weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, who then may fire Sarin Gas rockets into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, killing thousands inside of Israel.
4: The moderate Rebels and civilians may begin to hate the United States, and turn to those who they view as their last hope against Assad: Al Qaeda. Thus by our inaction, we will have spawned an entire nation of Al Qaeda supporters who hate America.
What are the top objections to US military intervention in Syria? (with my responses below the questions)
Claim 1: "We must not support the Rebels because they are all Al Qaeda!"
My Response: John Kerry said that at most, 15-25% of the Rebels are extremists, which means 75-85% of the Rebels are more moderate, and perhaps pro-America, pro-western people who are fighting for their freedom. The "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) which America supports, say that their goal is liberty for all races, genders, religions, and that they desire peace with Israel and the other surrounding nations.
Claim 2: "Doing airstrikes in Syria will spark World War III, causing Russia, Iran, and China to attack America!"
My Response: Vladimir Putin is not insane enough to risk a nuclear holocaust just to keep some weapons contracts with a brutal dictator, or protect a military base. Russia will not attack America over Syria. China will stay completely out of this. They don't even seem to think it merits their time or attention. Now, Iran is kind of a wildcard. They *could* retaliate against America or Israel. If that happens, Israel and America are prepared to deal with Iran as well.
Claim 3: "Obama would be violating international law by attacking Assad without UN approval."
My Response: America would actually be upholding and enforcing the international laws which, so far, for over 2 years, the UN has failed to uphold or enforce on Assad in Syria. Assad has violated (on hundreds of occasions) the international laws on mass-murder, genocide, attacking hospitals, targeting children, etc. etc. And on at least 13 occasions, the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on his own people, which violates the greatest international law in all of history: The prohibition of the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Claim 4: "This is another nation's civil war, and America simply has no reason to get involved."
My Response: If you feel this way, I would challenge you to think about what you would want other nations to do to help you if your leaders were firing Sarin Gas on your children or dropping bombs on your neighborhood from fighter jets. In addition, just think what the world would have been like had America not intervened to stop Hitler's Axis nations in World War II. The UN very clearly declares that every nation is obligated to intervene to stop genocide or mass slaughter. But even more importantly, America cannot stand by and allow the use of chemical weapons to go unpunished. Dictators committing genocide and using weapons of mass destruction cannot and will not be given impunity.
