The Syrian civil war has claimed innumerable lives and continues to bring colossal massacre in the community and land of the nation. U.S. being a massive force in the hierarchy of power in the world is bound by moral and ethical obligations to reach out to the hapless and do what it can as a leading power in the global political dais. The U.S, policy is aimed at putting an end to violence with establishment of the pillars of a stable democratic system in Syria by uprooting the Assad regime. There has to be protection for the Christian minorities, Alawite and Kurdish. The Assad regime can no longer be considered to be a stepping stone toward democratic ideal in Syria and U.S. needs to undertake strategic steps to weaken the tyrannical rule and boost the revolutionaries in favor of democracy.
The risk of chemical warfare already having been taken into consideration, military intervention of U.S. could help to defeat Assad regime and ignite the inception of new political landscape of Syria, in keeping with the U.S. policy of promotion and establishment of democracy over the world.
However, it needs to be comprehended that military intervention would require a nod from the Congress and would involve the engagement of innumerable American soldiers including the personnel from navy and air-force. A logical introspection can lead one to assume that practically any such military intervention would bring no good to U.S. as a force.
It has been reported by the New York Times that a large faction of the Syrian revolutionaries are actually hostile toward America and even go on to blame U.S. for allowing more than 40,000 people to meet their demise in the long conflict of 21 months. Indeed, even if U.S. intervenes now, there would still be loss of lives and even the American soldiers would be left in the line of fire. U.S. cannot hope to satiate the outcry of the Syrians for such a late intervention.
Also, the State Department has labeled many o the opposition groups to be parts of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It would be extremely undiplomatic to militarily intervene under such circumstances when these groups have accused U.S. of favoritism in the case of supplying ammunitions. U.S. should not be of aid to these extremist groups in any way and hence risking the lives of U.S. soldiers becomes a skeptical issue to ponder about.
The current NATO secretary, General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has opined that the military intervention would bring heavy expense for U.S. It would be a mistake to compare the situation of Syria with what prevailed in Libya. Assad’s forces are strong enough and have deeper links with Syrian people that Qadaffi. Going ahead with military intervention would be very unwise in such a scenario.
Surveys were done by the Pew Research Center enquiring if the U.S. is having the onus of doing something about Syria’s political upheaval. 63 percent opined that U.S. has no responsibility in December and 64 percent said the same in March. This simply testifies to the fact that majority of the U.S. citizens are against military intervention in Syria as they are apprehensive of the expenditure, loss of lives and futility of the scenario in U.S.
Thus, the Department of State and the President of the nation should take into consideration all the factors before plunging into a conclusion. It can be predicted that U.S. would not intervene with its military force in Syria based on the strong grounds against any such action. In relation to the strategic triangle, it can be fairly understood that the military intervention would result in huge expenditure for the U.S. The political sustainability of the intervention is extremely questionable and also the success of any such intervention cannot be guaranteed. Hence, it is best for the nation not to get involved in any sort of military offense in Syria under such circumstances.
References
(2013). US Syria Policy Promotes Endless Civil War. Retrieved from
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=
com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10165
Zhou, Dillion. (2013). Syria Civil War: The U.S. Has Nothing to Gain By Intervening. Retrieved
syria-civil-war-the-u-s-has-nothing-to-gain-by-intervening
(2013). Has U.S. Syria policy boosted Russia and left the "friendly" rebels in the dust? Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57605668/has-
u.s-syria-policy-boosted-russia-and-left-the-friendly-rebels-in-the-dust/
(2013). U.S. Policy Toward Syria. Retrieved from
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2013/207416.htm
