Last week, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people. Yes, though the United Nations prohibits chemical warfare, Assad gassed his own people. He, or the Syrian military I should say, used sarin, a nerve agent, to fight ISIS. It was a kind of “utilitarian” decision, assuming that whichever civilians are killed in the crossfire are worth it if an ISIS rebel goes down, too. However, the reality is not utilitarian, or even moral. At least 69 innocent people died. One boy, in fact, lost 19 members of his family in one night.
Sarin was manufactured first by Nazi scientists in Germany. They were manufacturing pesticides and came across a lethal killing agent. The first time it was used on a mass scale and by a government, however, was in 1987. But what exactly does it do to you? Well, sarin blocks the enzyme that clears neurotransmitters and messes with the nervous system. People vomit, lose control of their muscles, stop breathing and die. It’s a violent, scary death and kids were dying. Families were dying. Hospital patients, who thought they were in the clear and had a couple more days left, were dying.
Yes, the United States should do something. Everyone everywhere should do something. That’s not really up for debate; it is bipartisan and democrats and republicans both want to see necessary action taken. What that action is, however, is where they differ.
In response to the Syrian government’s attacks on its own people, President Donald Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles to supposedly send a message to Syria. Whereas most conservatives and moderate democrats (including Hillary Clinton) applauded his decision to intervene with the military, liberals and progressives alike, such as Bernie Sanders, consider war the absolute last option.
The missiles weren’t strategic as there were no targets. Instead, they were intended to send a message of American dominance and power overseas. It fractured our relationship with Russia, which is very good right now, because their president, Vladimir Putin, considers Syria and Assad important resources for them. The missiles were just a symbol.
And yet, any kind of military action is dangerous nonetheless. There’s always a chance that it does not end with the Tomahawk missiles and that we might get seriously involved militarily and on the ground. And the last time we got involved like that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we suffered major losses and left a vacuum that a newborn ISIS benefitted from.
We risk making the situation worse for not only the countries we’re invading but also for ourselves. We risk depleting our resources, people and morale. We risk funneling money, time and effort into the military all while forgetting about the economic, social and political issues here at home. If you don’t recall, the Iraq War divided and ingested the United States. The media got too involved in justifying it and lost the American people’s trust and attention. The president, too, said goodbye to whatever confidence the American people may have had in him, and distrust of the government was at an all-time high. Most importantly, though, an economic crash followed the war in 2008, leaving people homeless, jobless and hopeless.
What is perhaps most important is that there is a hypocrisy when it comes to military intervention in Syria. To most foreign policy hawks, the gassing of Syrian people is horrendous, heinous and wrong. Syrian people need our help, they say. We need to do something, they say. But their solution is far-fetched and makes their already dangerous lives more dangerous.
How about, of course, humanitarian and economic relief? How about we expand our refugee program and let those people and those kids in? What sense does it make, to feel for the pain of these people, to sympathize with these people, but to bomb them nonetheless. It’s a last resort option that has become, for many, a first and only option.
