Humanitarian Efforts in Syria

            The earliest days of September 2013 were standard in the United States; schools opened, neighborhood pools closed, and the American public assumed the traditional hubbub of a schedule lacking the luxuries of summertime. Yet by mid-September, as the news of Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons spread like wildfire through American media, the attention of the American public was held captive and questions regarding the United State’s response began to arise. The alleged “red line” had been crossed, and it was clear that Obama was set to intervene in Syria. Some hailed the idea as heroic, while others bemoaned the proposition as an invitation for a second Iraq War. While I understand the need for action in Syria, I would argue that the United States lacks the authority to intervene in a civil war which does not pertain to them. As Americans, our obligation is not to act as an overarching authority which polices the use of warfare, but rather, to reach out on a humanitarian level to help those who have been victimized by the war.  

            The assertion that America should rush to action on a military level has several inherent faults, mainly in its ignorance of the reality of the Syrian situation. For example, while proponents of military intervention would offer that the United States needs to take an active stance against the breach of conventional norms, that chemical weapons are not to be used in times of war, is a militaristic intervention the only method of achieving diplomacy? Exploring other options in which the United States is involved on a level which does not involve a war is an entirely viable alternative, especially considering the exponential cost and bloodshed which our involvement within Syria could unleash. There also remains the fact that following our involvement in Syria, more political instability could ensue, which begs the question of just how involved we should be. Rather than open Pandora’s Box for the sake of upholding our reputation as an enforcer of international law, I believe that the United States should become involved on a less militaristic level.

            Our nationwide concern with the welfare of Syrians was only recently sparked, following the news of chemical weapon use, while more than 100,000 Syrian casualties had been reported prior to the contraband weapons were even introduced to the scene. Our attention was held by the murmurs of torture, pain, misery, and suffering on the part of the Syrian people, and while it is difficult to differentiate between the combatants and the noncombatants, a primary fault which makes the concept of war unjustified, innocent victims are now fleeing the country to escape the hell which they previously called home. If Americans are inflamed enough to go to war for the rights of these people, I do not believe it is too idealistic to consider a humanitarian option in which we send financial aid to countries surrounding Syria for the support of refugees. Rather than sitting idly by and wondering what we should have done surrounding the Syria crisis of 2011-2013, I believe that we should find a way to ensure that these Syrians are not forced to suffer even more in countries that are overwhelmed by an influx of immigrants from the war-torn Syria, and whether we do this unilaterally, or with the help of other nations, I think that we have the potential to make a difference.

            While the United States as an entity possesses the power and influence to make a difference in the world, I believe that these assets would be better suited in Syria in the form of refugee assistance and humanitarian aid. While congressional leaders and a minority of Americans may argue for a military intervention in Syria, I do not believe that this war would be justified on our part or that we have the authority to intervene, and our efforts are best suited to help those who have been victimized by the civil war.