A
Necessary Intervention
When
mass atrocities occur in today’s world, humanitarianism is often vital to the
situation in order to promote human welfare.
In Syria, a large group of people is facing mass destruction during a
deadly civil war and intervention is necessary to stop this injustice and human
suffering. In a case as extreme as this, it is the United States’ moral
obligation to provide aid to the innocent suffering civilians in Syria, and do
whatever is necessary to end the mass killing in the region.
Military force should never be the
first option in any case similar to this, however in Syria, it may be
essential. In opposition, Ed Husain claims that military intervention is ill
conceived, counter productive, and likely to increase, instead of reduce,
killing of innocent cvilians. I don’t
believe this is particularly true, as the killings will only increase if we
just become bystanders waiting for things to pan out, while innocent people are
getting gassed to death and murdered by chemical weapons. We must not intervene
to show our power in the Middle East or for our own self- interest, however it
is necessary that we aid the refugees immediately and ensure that the mass
killings and injustice come to an end. As mentioned by Shadi Hamid in his article,
no one is arguing for an Iraqi- style invasion with thousands of boots on the
ground, as this will only make matters worse.
However, it is critical to establish safe zones to ensure humanitarian
assistance and safety for the civilians.
It is the United States’ moral duty to protect
innocent lives that are threatened every day by the deadly civil war taking
place in Syria and it is essential that we do everything in our power to end
this. I don’t understand how we can
consider sitting back and watching the mass murdering of tons of people by a
dictator. If the problem doesn’t “resolve itself”, how many more people have to
die before we decide to step in and take action. While the support of other
countries would greatly contribute to the resolution of the problem, we can’t
rely on others to step in and do what must be done. A joint coalition of nations to aid the
people of Syria may be the best option, but if this is not a conceivable plan,
then the United States must take it upon themselves to step in and end the mass
suffering. Right now, American
intervention is the best way to put an end to the crimes against humanity and
suffering in Syria.
I agree that it is immoral for a nation as powerful as the United States to sit back and watch as innocent people are being killed. However, why is it solely the responsibility of the US to intervene and stop these mass killings in Syria? Why is in not the job of the UN or even another capable state?
ReplyDeleteYou're right, it's not solely the responsibility of the US to intervene. The UN as well as other capable, powerful states should feel morally obligated to intervene as well, however if that is not the case, then that should not affect America's actions.
DeleteI agree in that it is not solely the US's responsibility. Do you think that the US could spend some time persuading other powerful countries, such as the United Kingdom or France, that humanitarian aid in Syria is necessary and convince them to help as well?
DeleteI completely agree with your argument. We have the resources to assist those in need, and I do not think that providing humanitarian assistance is an obligation which we should refuse solely because "no one else is doing it." If our country has the ability to help the victims of a gruesome civil war, I agree with your idea that we should take it upon ourselves to step in on a humanitarian level.
ReplyDelete