Syria “in the wrong,” but we must tread carefully

Daniel Melo/Contributing Writer

President Donald Trump ordered a military attack on Syria for violating regulations from the Chemical Weapons Convention last Thursday, April 6.

Syria used chemical warfare on their own citizens, claiming the lives of 85 people – including approximately 24 children, and wounding about 350 more. If this wasn’t enough, Assad activists proceeded to bomb the medical facilities where the wounded were receiving medical care.

One thing is clear in this: Syria is in the wrong. But is the United States entitled to interfere with aggressive measures when the decisions of a foreign and sovereign state does not affect us at home?

John Locke claims that a war or an attack could solely be perceived as ‘just’ if performed with the intention of defending oneself from an aggressor. Many believe that this also extends to defending the weak and the helpless – and this is exactly what the United States did on Thursday night.

Syria has been in a civil war since 2011, and the United States has only targeted a specific Syrian air base with periodic cruise missiles (the number of causalities is unclaimed), however, for the first time since the ongoing civil war began, the United States bombed a significant regime target.

This is a change in the Trump regime, which originally campaigned itself on an ‘America first’ approach. However, this change signals a humanitarian stance on international affairs, attempting to protect those who can’t protect themselves, but ultimately, was this worth it?

The Assad regime has been receiving military support from Russia, and after the attack on Thursday, Russia was quick to speak up. According to Fox News, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the attack as “an act of aggression on a sovereign state” that “dealt a serious blow to Russia-U.S. relations.”

Russia is a significant world power that currently outnumbers us in nuclear weapons possessed. According to Business Insider, Russia has a total of 1,790 nuclear weapons that are deployed and ready to use whilst the U.S. has 1,740. Russia’s number isn’t significantly larger – but the fact that these two superpowers could potentially escalate this situation is dreadful to think about.

For all that it’s worth, it’s better to keep the peace and seek diplomatic agreements than risk a potential Russian retaliation on U.S. troops or American soil.

DISCLAIMER:

The opinions presented within this page do not represent the views of Panther Press Editorial Board. These views are separate from editorials and reflect individual perspectives of contributing writers and/or members of the University community.

Image retrieved from Flickr.