On April 13, the United States, along with France and the United Kingdom, struck Syria with missiles in a response to President Assad’s chemical attack. Since the air strike, people around the globe have questioned if this was the right thing for the United States and its allies to do.
It is important to note that the U.S., France, and the UK make up three of the five U.N. great powers. The other two are Russia and China, which support Syria and Assad’s regime. When President Donald Trump made the decision to strike Syria, there is no doubt whether this was a factor he considered. It is critical that the U.N. stand against political regimes such as Syria’s that hurt their own people. Because the U.N. could not take a directly take a stance, it is imperative that three of the five great powers do.
Without air strikes, the people of Syria who are being attacked by Assad are left without hope. Yes, in 2017 when President Trump ordered missiles to strike Syria, there was little to no long-term impact on Assad’s ability to continue using chemical attacks. But the people of Syria and Assad himself knew that the U.S. would not stand for a political regime that severely hurts its people. This gives the people of Syria much needed hope — hope that the world will not turn a blind eye and will instead help them escape the atrocities that continue to occur in their country.
The U.S. has the ability to influence change anywhere on the globe. With great power comes great responsibility. The U.S. has the ability to aid Syrians.
Now, can you imagine having the power to help but deciding not to? I hope no one can. People disagree on whether sending missiles to deter Assad from attacking again is the right way to aid Syrians. But the real issue is that people in Syria are being assaulted. Instead of protecting them, their government is hunting them with no end in sight. Yes, we can debate what action is best to take, but not taking action in a humanitarian crisis such as this one is unacceptable.
RELATED: Kumar: Syria’s suffering has gone ignored
Diplomacy must be prioritized
By Michelle Kumar
Considering that we’ve already sent missiles to Syria, and we can’t take them back, we need to stop arguing over the fact that it happened and focus on what’s next. Our next approach should not be more violence; we’ve proven our point. Let’s use this momentum to force diplomacy instead. Further air strikes and direct military intervention will only further destabilize a region that’s barely hanging on by a thread.
Even Defense Secretary James Mattis said, “We are trying to stop the murder of innocent people, but on a strategic level, it’s how do we keep this from escalating out of control, if you get my drift, on that?”
The Syrian civil war is extremely complex because of the many proxy wars within it. There are so many agendas being pushed that if you make the wrong move, you could set the whole region on fire. The U.S. should not be the country that does that. Attempting to be the world’s police again will just cause another vacuum of power, especially when history has proven our tactics in the Middle East haven’t always had the best results.
Our relationship with Russia, a strong backer of the Assad regime, is already strained, and Russians won’t appreciate the continued strong-arming. Between the president’s “Twitter diplomacy” and the disconnect among him, the Defense secretary and the U.N. ambassador, our actions are alarming and cause not only embarrassment but a security threat.
Moreover, when citizens asked the government to do something about Syria, we meant taking in refugees and helping them, not dragging out a war that’s been going on for seven years. If we’re going to directly intervene in Syria, it should be in attempts to deescalate the situation, not make it worse. It’s time for this administration to actually figure out its foreign policy and realize the world’s problems aren’t going to be solved with bombs.
