CON-

I’m adamantly opposed to U.S. military involvement in Syria. This isn’t due to my politics by any means. I’m a relatively moderate conservative.

In fact, I actually agree with what President Obama said on Sept. 10. I’m anti-involvement because right now the opposition does not have a single voice and any government they put up is unlikely to remain stable for a great period of time.

Nearly half of the opposition forces are radical Islamists. They’re not fighting for a free and independent Syria. These Mujahideen really want to topple Assad’s government and replace the secular government with one under Sharia law. This isn’t speculation on my part, these groups are very public with their ideology.

It’s stupid to think that these groups will simply dissolve if the Free Syrian Army replaces Assad’s regime. They’ll maintain the secular government, which will cause problems with the radical Muslim forces. The jihadists didn’t disappear in Egypt, they didn’t disappear in Libya, and fighting is still going on there, years after these uprisings.

And this is my main point. If the US intervenes we will eventually have to help the new government crackdown on militant Islamists. It’s a commitment for the long haul: overthrowing Assad, dealing with the various sub-factions and their sub-factions, establishing a new government, providing aid during the interim, and finally waging a long and painfully slow war against insurgents.

We’ve seen with Iraq just how long, slow and expensive this kind of a war will be, and before you say that Syria is not Iraq, stop. Iraq had the same government, the same types of insurgents are fighting, and the geography and type of urban war we will have to fight are going to be identical. While we have a bit more experience in this type of fight, I don’t believe it will be enough to speed up this new government’s stability.

Beyond the above, we don’t owe Syria anything. We’ve not really promised them much besides the same meaningless platitudes to give “aid” as we do to nearly everyone. I’m fine with that because this is a civil war; the aggressor in this instance was the people, not an invading country.

Syria is a sovereign nation. If the people fighting there now want to maintain that after this ugly mess, they will have to slug it out like so many countries did before them. Thus far the Syrians seem to be willing to pay the cost of blood. America has already paid, is still paying, for two other countries. Syria does not need our help right this moment, and until the opposition can speak with one voice, one cause, and one idea on a new Syria, they shouldn’t get it.

PRO-

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” To me, there are no words more poignant to describe the current situation in Syria. An injustice did occur that day and the consequences of that single act are being dealt with by the entire world.

Anytime a government uses chemical weapons against its own citizens, the very people it is meant to represent and protect, calls for a serious assessment of leadership of that government. The use of chemical weapons is an action that cannot be tolerated or appeased. It is an act that requires efficient and decisive action from the global community or individual nations such as the US. If not dealt with, the use of chemical weapons could be thought of as an acceptable act.

The idea of chemical weapons being used by Syria is a formidable and frightening concept, especially considering that Syria is going through a civil war. Not only does it pose a threat to the opposition forces in Syria, but also to Syria’s neighboring countries, like Israel, though I don’t believe the effects of chemical weapons end within this region.

Our world is a global community, whether or not some members wish to belong to the community at all. The idea that every country is its own isolated island is bunk. In this day and age of globalization, whatever one country does begins a ripple effect that stretches, perhaps affecting some more than others, across the globe.

I have to ask whether a government that is capable of using these types of weapons on their own citizens would have any qualms about using them on another country, particularly if the government has had increasingly negative interactions with other countries.

I have to give President Obama some credit. This time, the president is going through the proper procedures regarding a possible military strike against Syria. He took the issue to Congress for a vote first, even though the idea of intervening in Syria seems to be against public sentiment. It is refreshing to see constitutional procedures followed.

Currently the Congressional vote is postponed, pending on Syria’s compliance to the agreed terms of the deal, beginning with presenting an exhaustive list of Syria’s chemical arsenal and allowing inspectors to enter chemical weapon sites.

I hate sounding like a warmonger and quite frankly the optimist in me hopes that the agreement reached by the US, Russia, and Syria works out. However, the idea that any community action hinges on a resolution for action passing in the United Nations, knowing that Russia has already vetoed three resolutions on Syria, doesn’t inspire much confidence.