To Strike or Not to Strike?

     I didn't intend for this blog to be all about current events but I just couldn't help myself with all the talk about the U.S. wanting to take action against Syria for using chemical weapons on its citizens. I get updates on Facebook from my local radio station and the comments some people were leaving on the news posts were annoying. I chose to voice my opinion here, where I can thoroughly explain my position.     In case anyone reading this has not been keeping up with current events here is the gist of it. Syrian rebels claimed that the government used a chemical weapon on citizens in rebel held areas. UN investigators were finally allowed in the area, after heavy government bombing, to collect evidence. The U.S. has said that based on independent evidence gathered the people were attacked with sarin gas and that there should be military strikes made against the Syrian government.
     Some people are saying the U.S. should quit sticking its nose into other countries' business while others support the U.S. position. I personally see it for what it is, a complex issue with no easy solution. I doubt the U.S. really wants to get into another war but at the same time the use of chemical weapons cannot be ignored. Why you ask? Well something I read online recently might help.
     A friend on Facebook shared an article on The Washington Post's website written by Max Fisher entitled "9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask." I read it and what he said made a lot of sense. He says, "The whole idea that there are rules of war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons." So basically what Max Fisher is saying is that if we let Assad get away with using chemical weapons then it will be that much easier for the next guy to choose to use them and that would be disastrous for the citizens in whatever area gets gassed.

      Back to the comments made by people on the news post I was talking about earlier.  Some were saying the Americans are just being busybodies while others questioned their motives, asking if there was oil or gold in Syria.  I understand why these people feel that way but at the same time it comes across as really ignorant. Should the U.S. fire cruise missiles on Syria?  I think it's better than sending in ground troops and the images of gas victims being broadcast by the media makes me sad and angry at the same time.  Can we really just sit back and do nothing when innocent children are being killed?  How many people felt the Americans should have intervened in Darfur with all the tragedies going on there?  The U.S. can't step in and try to solve all the world's problems, they have too many of their own but they also can't let Assad get away with using chemical weapons.  It's a complex issue and no matter what happens there will be critics saying they did wrong.  To Strike or Not to Strike? That is the question.