Syria has undergone a civil war for the past two years where hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and two million have been forced into refuge with their families by fleeing Syria. Bashar Assad has used ruthless force against rebel troops, all while rebel troops with connections to regional terrorist organizations have shown their brutality with captured Syrian troops as well. The atrocities of war between these two forces have increased as time has passed and hit a peak when chemical weapons armed with the poison gas of sarin were used on civilians in a suburb of Damascus on August 21st.
It is said that nearly 1,400 men, women and children died on that day due to those weapons being used. The extent of disregard for lives and international law were demonstrated by this heinous attack and while very few people doubt these chemical attacks took place, the questions that sprout from these events taking place are numerous and essential to answer before committing American military weapons to be used against Bashar Assad's government troops in order to assist terrorist-linked rebel troops. My questions are these:
1. If Bashar Assad was gaining advantage over the rebels in the civil war, why then would he have authorized chemical weapons to be used? Which side REALLY stood to gain most from chemical weapons being used?
2. Why does Obama want to go to Congress for authorization to attack Syria if he still insists that he'll attack Syria anyway even without that authorization?
3. Looking back at the most recent military interventions of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan; why should the American people have ANY confidence that military strikes in Syria would do anything to help with America's national security or even the security of the Syrian people where they are at war with one another?
4. If Syrian forces were to shoot down an American plane or sink an American vessel in retaliation to American attacks, does Obama STILL rule out American troops on the ground?
5. If Obama's military team says this intervention is also to prevent "chemical weapons from going into the hands of terrorists", yet weapons have already been used against innocent civilians, who's to say military strikes would prevent that or even decrease the likelihood of it happening again?
6. Obama said his goal of military strikes isn't for "regime change", yet he insists Bashar Assad step down and is arming and training rebels while plotting out which sites in Syria are worth striking. Why not just say the truth and say his strikes aim is for "regime change"?
7. If the U.S. military strikes the chemical weapon sites, what would be the consequence of those poisons and toxic chemicals making it into the air among civilians?
8. U.S. attacks Syria, Hezbollah attacks American interests, Israel strikes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Lebanon spirals out of control due to the pressure of war and Syrian refugees, Iran supplies Hezbollah to attack Israel, then the region loses some of it's infrastructure and stability.... Should these series of events take place, then what?
I've missed out on several credible questions and scenarios, but I feel these are all questions worth exploring in the days to come. It is my utmost belief that what we're seeing manifest and unfold in Syria is part of a larger elaborate scheme on someone's part; an orchestrated set of events meant to evoke chaos and instability in order to gain an upper hand. I don't feel Syria threatens the livelihood of the United States or it's interests, I don't feel we've seen evidence Bashar Assad himself authorized these chemical attacks and I don't feel it is in the middle east or the international community's best interests to intervene militarily and help the already proven terrorist-linked Syrian Rebels into power. It does not make sense to me that we take a heinous secular dictator out of power and replace him with a heinous Islamist terrorist-backed group of rebels.
Obama and his backers say "History will judge us if we do not intervene"..
... but the truth is history has already judged us by our failed and flawed interventions. It's time we stop giving history books any more reason to look down on our nation and it's insatiable appetite for foreign intervention.
From me to the world,
- David.
