Jon Stenger

Professor Shirk

October 22, 2015

Humanitarian Intervention in Syria

            Looking back on the crisis in Syria and the results that have come from it, it seems fairly clear that more should have been done in terms of intervention into the conflict. Although many will argue that, given the uncertainty and our recent dealings with Iraq, that in the moment we should have not intervened, but in accordance to Ty Solomon’s article, I think intervention should have happened earlier given the severe damages and immense casualties caused by the more “conventional” weapons compared to the small use of WMD’s in Syria.

            In order to warrant intervention by the US based on the casualties caused by the more “conventional” weapons, the divide between the taboo of chemical weapons and normal bombs and guns has to be narrowed. People may argue that the horror attached to chemical weapons and their use is what changes people’s perception of them compared to normal weapons, but in the end the result is that same, even with more casualties being caused by the more normal weapons. In Syria, it has been estimated that around 100,000 people were killed before there was any use of chemical weapons. Compare that to deaths caused by the chemical weapons, and the ratio is 1 death by chemical weapon for every 100 other deaths. Even given the uncertainty about what was really happening in Syria, I think given this information it would have been enough to warrant some intervention earlier on.

            Furthermore, earlier intervention could have helped create stability in an incredibly unstable region. With the US pulling out of Iraq, a power vacuum had opened which opened up opportunities for other groups to rise up. By reestablishing ourselves into the Syrian conflict, we could have potentially shut down or prevented the rise of what has now become ISIS. Keeping a strong military presence in the region could help us secure our interests in the region, while also simultaneously stopping the merciless killing of thousands of civilians in Syria. Not only could it have benefited the US economically, but it could have improved our international image by helping to control some of the crimes against humanity.

            Given the dangers and damage caused by more “conventional” weapons, the US should have intervened earlier in terms of providing humanitarian help to the Syrians, and to help protect our interests in the region. The taboo surrounding chemical weapons, that assesses them as being “worse” than normal weapons is misguided because of the tremendous causalities caused by these normal weapons. Given the conflict that had been occurring for 2 years, and the casualties caused by this, the US should have gone in to prevent more damage to Syria and the region.