Should the US intervene if there is no doubt that Assad is using chemical weapons in Syria?

6
Share.

According to US intelligence agencies there is “varying degrees of confidence” that Syria had used the nerve agent sarin during the domestic conflict, unveiled the White House on Thursday 25 April. Should the US intervene if the case is confirmed? 

About Author

International Security Observer

The International Security Observer (ISO) is a web-based think tank on international security and defence affairs. It was created in September 2011 in order to foster the next generation of security experts by encouraging discussions on strategic issues among junior and senior analysts. ISO’s strength lies within its worldwide network of volunteer contributors, who come from different cultural backgrounds and disciplines. So far, ISO has hosted thoughts, insights and articles from more than 50 contributors from Europe, the U.S. and Asia.

6 Comments

  1. The first issue is the credibility of the source. The US went to Iraq under more or less the same pretext.

    The second issue is who are they to intervene. Are they the imbodiment of the world community of nations.

    Thirdly lets get our priorities right. Are Palestinian people lesser human beings that their aparhteid bantustans are a shooting range for the Israeli Army to practice their shooting?

    If democracy is an issue why is Bahrain not on the agenda for suppressing its people. If the Syrian government enjoyed the same support as the Bahrain monarch, it would have long suppressed the current insurgency. Actually how many democrasies are we having in that region?

  2. If the UN confirms that Chemical weapons were used in Syria, whether by rebels or Assad Regime, then its the role of UN mechanisms to take place since this is in line with the main goal of this Organisation: maintenance of International Peace and Security, so it is not the role of USA nd i wont vote neither yes nor no

  3. Syed Qamar Afzal on

    The vertiable and candid fact of the matter is that the’ doctrine of humanitarian intervention’ has already lost its vearcity since the method and the manner through which the interventions are made do reflect the impression that these provide the ‘ultravires means of intrusion’.That is why I would vote for ‘NO’.

  4. There may be a translation issue here. When we say ‘chemical weapons’ in the west we mean proscribed substances that inflict permanent damage or kill. Syria has a long relationship with Russia, much of their technical material is in Russian, and the words that translate to chemical weapon can mean “non-lethal irritants” – tear gas. Until it is proven that there are chemical weapons being employed, and neither are media nor the rebels themselves can be trusted as a source, I think this requires further inspection.

    If we are sure I would pose this poll as a Maybe/No rather than a Yes/No question. Neoconservative U.S. think tank the Foreign Policy Initiative, headed by William Krystol, is in a rush for us to intervene. That’s the first indicator that something is amiss.

Leave A Reply

Get Amazing Articles

Get our articles delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Now.
Email address
Secure and Spam free...