Intervention in Syria
A deadly civil war has been raging for two years in Syria between the government and the rebels. Consequently, on 21st August, Damascus was struck by rockets containing chemical materials. Within hours thousands of innocent people were left profoundly distressed at the barbaric aftermath caused by these sudden attacks. 1,429 people were killed including 426 children and the manner of their deaths was unspeakably grim. The Syrian government were accused of conducting these attacks but denied allegations even though evidence clearly shows they were complicit in this deeply inhumane massacre of their own people. Should we just stand passively and allow more chemical callous carnage or should we take military action with the strong possibility that if we do so this could lead to more deaths than we imagined despite the honourable motive involved.’ Critics of military action in Syria argue that it is ill advised as it could lead to a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, our troops have been in Iraq since 2003, are still fighting and this has done nothing to make our country safer. If we send out troops to Syria how long will they be expected to come to terms with the vicious hostility before this bitter civil war? Almost inevitably families will be separated from loved ones or find themselves mourning their loss. Why should they suffer for an entrenched conflict that has nothing to do with them? Moreover, Barack Obama has stated if America does intervene military it will not be ‘on foot.’ Consequently, that means they will be taking action through air force but there are grave doubts about the effectiveness of this. If action is taken through air force that would certainly involve air strikes which means that they could be killing more innocent people than we anticipated to ensure that less of our own soldiers die even though ironically, we are trying to prevent more killings happening in Syria. Those opposed to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document