Period 10: Chemical Weapons, President Trump. Syria

For quite some time, Syria and Bashar al-Assad’s regime have struggled to maintain peace in their own country, let alone establish healthy relationships with others. An example of this is the connection between Syria and the State of Israel, although it is as far away from a healthy relationship as a relationship could be, considering Syria has threatened to use their chemical weapons against “the Jews” several times, in which Israel and its allies retaliated. This threat alone would be just enough for foreign intervention, considering the United States’ stance in the Middle East and intervention in that part of the world. Nonetheless, we must look at the bigger picture, as with most things in politics. Were the US to individually terminate Syrian leaders - as extreme a circumstance as this might be - for the continued harm they are enacting on their own people, how would other nations respond? Well, we can start with Russia, and their stance in the Syrian conflict. Since the recent attack in Douma, Russia has given multiple statements, most of which claim that the Syrian attack was “staged by foreign agents,” as one BBC article explains. This is typical of Russia to exclaim, as they have been militaristically backing the Syrian government since its alliance. Back to the point, if the US were to put the nail in the coffin in Syria, if they were to ever succeed, it would mean another conflict with Russia; not an end to the book, but merely another chapter. Hence why not only acting quickly, but carefully is so important.

One must also look at the idea behind chemical weapons, and how they differ from the conventional ones we have grown so used to seeing or even handling ourselves. The primary element of chemical weapons is to attack the person at their health. The attack in Douma was a supposed use of organophosphate, as abc.net’s science experts report:

“All these chemicals work in much the same way by inhibiting an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase at the nerve junction (synapse).”

“Acetylcholine acts mainly on the body's autonomic nervous system — the body's involuntary nervous system — which controls things such as heart rate, respiratory rate, salivation, digestion, pupil dilation, and urination.”

So, the weapons the world must deal with now includes dying from internal destruction. Lovely.

All in all, if and when other countries act on this Syrian matter, they must take into consideration the citizens of the country, something that the leaders themselves have not done. (Question:) If there is such a way to solve the issue with little bloodshed, I cannot explain what it is, nor might it even exist.

@elliott
I really like how you worded your original response, in addition I agree with most of what you said. In order to resolve this issue, little bloodshed is not even a question, because I believe that at some point in time one side will end it faster than the other. "Little bloodshed", will not be a word to describe however it (the chemical weapons situations/attacks) will turn out.

@mcdermott
In response to your posed question, I don't believe that there is a way to terminate the overall use of chemical weapons. People have found other ways of torture and that is through chemical weaponry as the best example shown in history was Hitler and the treatment he gave towards Jews. Since then and before chemical weapons were used to hurt others. I believe that once you invent something and it gets in the hands of a destructive, power seeking individual or nation there is no way to reverse actions taken. Something other than chemical weaponry could have been invented to help in a particular situation ex. dynamite, which was invented to help speed the oil mining process. Once the device was put in the hands of a power seeking individual dynamite became an explosive to hurt others. Therefore, I don't believe that there is a way to specifically terminate the overall use of chemical weapons or other destructive mechanisms.

Due to the extremely unfortunate situation that has happened in Syria, American leaders feel obligated to help the innocent people that can not fight back at their government. The government is meant to protect the people from danger; not expose their own people to danger that they intentionally cause. These people need help and if no one else is willing to help Syrians then America feels obligated to help them. But there are many risks that President Trump pushes depending on how he handles the situation. If troops were sent to Syria we automatically put our own men and women in trouble. Now we would risk the lives of innocent American men and women over something that did not originally affect America. By interfering with the Syrian government we make America itself a more dangerous place. There are current issues with ISIS that are already in place between America and the terrorist group. By interfering with the Syrian government we heighten the tension between America and ISIS. Now (11:00pm) that other countries are are helping the Syrian people it does not make America stand out to Syria. Due to the countries joining each other to stop the nuclear warfare it takes pressure off of America. Now, these countries want to end nuclear warfare, reasonably, to save innocent people. By doing this America is making good connections with other countries overseas, \working against Russia and Iran with many other countries. Nations, France and Britain along with America will go together to end this.

@caldwell I do believe that there is reason for not taking direct action when it comes to approaching Syria. In my opinion, their government does not care and consider other's lives and i believe that it causes others such as America to watch what they do when approaching because no ones what the Syrian government will do in return. 

While the role should not fall to the President alone, some person or persons in the U.S. need to make decisions about taking action in these circumstances. While America is often criticized for its involvement in other countries, an attack like this on civillians with a weapon such as Chemical Gas, action needs to be taken. Chemical weapons are banned militarily for a few reasons. First, they are difficult to control, so it is difficult to tell exactly who it is going to effect when deployed. It is also due to the tremendous psychological torture poisonous gases cause and the debilitating affects that people suffer from decades afterward. The U.S. also needs to sbow resolve and strength when challenged. The U.S. stated that action would be taken if an event like this occured, and to not make good on that promise would comprimise the authority and integrity of the United States.

The Syrian chemical attacks were catastrophic, eye-opening events that raise various questions about America’s interventionist roles as well as the morality of chemical weapons themselves. According to the OPCW, extensive exposure to high doses of chemical weapons can affect the respiratory center and cause muscular paralysis. The combination of the two is a “direct cause of death” (opcw.org). Some lethal gases include phosgene and mustard gas, which can cause suffocation, lung damage, and chemical burns. Many would consider the use of these gases incomparable to the use of more conventional weapons such as machine guns etc. Militaries and some organizations might praise the effectiveness and efficiency of using such lethal weapons. However, these “benefits” are met by a strong barrier of global standards and ethics. Such global standards raise questions regarding the “duty” of powerful, influential nations to step in and uphold them. Barack Obama was well aware of this dilemma. He posed threats of military intervention in the event of continued chemical weapon use however his presidency proved to be mostly non-interventionist (Vox). Donald Trump has taken it one step further. Trump has previously deployed missiles and threatened to deploy them once again in the wake of Syria’s chemical attacks (Vox). Such a drastic change in executive decision - or action - has sparked controversy. Although some may argue that extensive American intervention in foreign issues is not the best way to solve global conflict, there are circumstances where such intervention is necessary. When innocent lives are jeopardized and the morality of international governments and organizations are in question, powerful nations must intervene. However, the practice of foreign intervention should not be abused. Foreign intervention becomes a problem when nations act with selfish interests. Foreign intervention should only be used in the interest of assistance in global or international crises and emergencies. With its controversial escalation, the issue of chemical weapons is an undeniable hotbed for American intervention. After all, the use of them in warfare has seen preventative and prohibitive measures almost a century ago with the Geneva Protocol (un.org). The real controversy lies in the potential handling of the issue. Although missile strikes certainly get send a strong message, the practicality of punishing the use of destructive weapons with application of more destructive weapons is questionable. Should America fight fire with fire? Is there a more diplomatic solution? Is the foreign misuse of chemical weapons even worth American time, money, and resources?