Thursday, October 24, 2013

A Necessary Intervention

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.

4 comments:

  1. 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?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'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.

      Delete
    2. I 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?

      Delete
  2. I 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