Syria and the question of intervetion


Recently tensions have been ramping up in Syria, especially after the accusations that the government are using chemical weapons on the “rebels”. Of course that means if in fact they are using those sorts of weapons (still to be determined at time of writing) then it means that they are using them on ordinary people as well.

In the last week the British government has decided not to intervene in Syria and the U.S. is still discussing whether or not it will get involved. I completely understand the seeming reluctance, for want of a better word. Considering how unpopular western “interventions” are in the region and the fact that the situation is more complicated that in Iraq for example. We invaded Iraq before it was clear whether or not they had weapons of mass destruction and after it turn out they didn’t what was already an unpopular war became even more unpopular. So ruling out or delaying another war seems to be the sensible thing to do right now, at least until confirmation either way on whether or not President Assad and his government used chemical weapons.

Another thing to consider is the fact that groups like Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are getting involved on both sides of the fight so when people talk about arming or supporting the “rebels” it is important to know who we’re getting involved in. Although this sounds a lot like picking and choosing allies of convenience,  it is important to think of the long term future of the country, the wider region and the rest of the world. There is no point ousting one dictator for him to be replaced by another or by an unpopular leader, like what is currently happening in Egypt.

All things considered I think that stepping back from this conflict is the more intelligent thing to do for now. Of course I’m not saying the conflict needs to end soon, for the sake of innocent people, but getting involved can only escalate the problem hence why I think we need to find an alternative way to end the war. There also needs to be a way to protect the civilians and that means the possibility getting involved at some level. I suppose the only thing to do is wait and see what the UN investigations bring back and see what decisions are made based on that.

About duncanainsworth

Duncan, 29, will most likely talk about mental health, video games, sci-fi, personal challenges and a few other things. I have Asperger's Syndrome and Depression
This entry was posted in Politics, World Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Syria and the question of intervetion

  1. Sheepy says:

    The Iraq invasion wasn’t simple, the main media put focus on the WMD possession which perhaps maintains this idea. What about the revelations during the 90s of the use of mustard gas and nerve agents against the Kurdish people? With Iraq and it’s Persian neighbour ravaged and disfigured by a sick (also partly civil) war of attrition, it’s easy to justify _a_ intervention in Iraq, though perhaps not _the_ intervention that occurred.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s