A few months ago the United States was on the brink of intervening in the Syrian civil war due to the use of chemical weapons. Subsequently, a deal between Russia and Syria's Assad regime, the weapons were turned over and hopefully disposed of. Regardless of the outcome, the war itself has largely disappeared from the headlines and public memory. The following is a letter that I wrote to US Senator Robert Menendez regarding my opinion as events unfolded.
Senator Menendez,
My name is Matthew Cowans and I am a resident of New Jersey who is very concerned about the direction of the United States’ recent foreign policy. I strongly believe that military action is the wrong reaction to the Syrian civil war. What is the current urgency of this action? The Syrian civil war has been fought in the streets of Damascus and the suburbs of Alleppo for over thirty months yet prior to the chemical weapon attacks, there was no march to war or call to action. Syria possessing chemical weapons has been common knowledge for years the fact that they have been used is no game changer for me or the majority of the public. Are the lives of the thousand killed by gas more valuable than the lives of those shot, blown up or crushed? As far as I know, dead is dead and anything else is pure semantics. The civil war in Central Africa has claimed millions of lives yet never earns a shred of attention. A military action should not be so casually waged,.
War is an unpredictable creature as it can evolve and change as time goes on. Allies today can and often are enemies tomorrow. Regarding President Obama’s drive to intervene in the war in Syria, what is the end goal of this action? Is it the end of the Assad regime the goal or simply the removal of chemical weapons from Assad’s hands? If Assad falls, what prevents these weapons from falling into the hands of enemies of the United States? Finally do the rebels share America’s interests and what would happen if they possess these weapons? These questions need to be answered prior to firing the first Tomahawk or sending the first ship into harm’s way.
Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq descended into chaos and civil war that both the White House and the US military struggled to contain. Are you prepared to deal with similar disorder and disarray in Syria? Missiles alone will not secure the weapons on the ground or end the battle for Syria’s future. I do not believe a limited action will accomplish much of anything. America does not want another ground war in the Middle East but how will the weapons be secured or peace restored without it? Even limited actions can have resounding consequences. From the explosion of a ship in a tropical bay to an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo, history has proved time and time again that seemingly small incidents can transform into tragedies that change the world forever.
I believe that the United States role should be to provide humanitarian aid to all affected by this war. There is a refugee crisis where people need to food to eat, water to drink, and shelter. We must show the world our heart and not our muscles. In a situation like this there are no easy answers but adding U.S. military action will not make the picture any clearer or the day any brighter to the people caught up in this mess. Before you cast your vote or rally your supporters, do you really believe that killing more Syrians and bombing an already devastated nation in reaction to crimes against humanity is humane? Are you prepared to deal with the protests, the non-stop media coverage, and other consequences of war? Mr. Menendez, the ball is in your court and the world is speaking. Listen to it.
Comments
Post a Comment