By Leo Youssef
In response to a chemical weapons attack that took the lives of over one thousand Syrians in Damascus, U.S. President Barack Obama is urging the American public, Congress, and the United Nations to target and destroy alleged chemical weapons storage areas in Syria. These threats have triggered opposition from Russia and Iran who propose to defend Syria or target American allies in the Middle East.
The subject brings about the question of who really used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in Damascus? President Obama has stated that the Syrian government ordered this strike. However, in an interview with Charlie Rose on September ninth, Syrian President Bashar Assad stated otherwise, and denied having chemical weapons. Assad blames the Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group, under the name “The Free Syrian Army,” as having made the attack to trigger a Western response. In support of Assad, a U.N. Inspector who analyzed the aftermath of the chemical weapons attack discovered that the containers had been tampered with, meaning that the opposition was responsible. Russian inspectors that analyzed samples in a scientific manner have stated findings coherent with the U.N. Inspector’s.
Another question that arises is who would America be supporting in a military strike on Syria? Comprised of Al-Qaeda terrorists from neighboring countries and backed by the money of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the Syrian opposition is a divided group that aims to instill religious extremist values in the non-secular country. The rebels have been videotaped beheading Syrian soldiers in front of small children and acting in such barbaric ways. Is helping this group really what the Western World wants? After having waged a war on terror against Al-Qaeda (the terrorist group responsible for the September Eleventh attacks) for the past decade, would it not be hypocritical to aid these extremists now?
Even though hundreds of thousands of Syrians are supposedly deceased and many have taken refuge in neighboring Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, no intervention or concern was made. But, when a little over one thousand civilians passed away in a chemical strike, Obama finally drew the line, demonstrating America’s questionable humanity. Considering America’s domestic and economic weaknesses, foreign threats against American intervention (including Hossein Sheikholeslam of Iran’s claim that “[T]he Zionist regime will be the first victim of a military attack on Syria”), Syria’s key geographical location in the region, the misunderstanding of the true conflict, and the past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, two questions remain: Is military intervention the correct approach to ending the conflict in Syria, and is it America’s responsibility to step in?
