The Syrian Conflict

Syria’s civil war began as a protest on March 2011. As part of the Arab Spring, a part of Syrian population went into protests against President Bashar Al-Assad’s and his regime (CBC News, 2013). The protestors blamed Assad’s regime for abuses of human rights, poor governance and making of superficial changes aimed at enhancing the image of his rule. Assad’s regime responded through harsh and oppressive tactics aimed at quashing the protests. However, his response further angered the protestors who took up arms. The conflict crossed the threshold of a minor conflict in a year and a half after the death of over 100000 people (CBC News, 2013). As a result, the International Red Cross made a formal declaration that elevated the conflict to a civil war. The conflict has raged on for two years displacing millions and claiming hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria.

The increase in refugee numbers and death toll from Syria prompted unofficial United States support of the rebel factions that emerged from protestors (Kumar, 2013). Though not publicly confessed, Reuters has reported that the U.S has been providing Syrian rebels with weapons so as to empower them to topple Assad’s regime (Hosenball, 2012). According Reuters other neighboring nations such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also been providing anti-tank weapons, bazookas and guns. The US and some of its allies such as the United Kingdom (UK) have also pledged the provision of body armor, communication equipment and military gear for the rebels (Hosenball, 2012). Other forms of military support offered by US agencies are least known because they are part a secretive and tactical approach to the problem. However, there is openly pledged humanitarian assistance that is being offered in terms of medical and food supplies (Hosenball, 2012). All this involvement by the US is mainly a result of the escalation of violence and increase in deaths as well as human displacement. In supporting the rebels, the US hopes that Assad’s regime will be toppled and peaceful environment attained (Kumar, 2013). This had been so much the position till the alleged use of chemical weapons occurred in mid-2013. The launch of chemical weapons at Moadamiya and Tarma, which are locations under civilian population, has changed the US focus on to the contemplation of a possible military strike aimed at neutralizing Assad’s chemical weapons’ power. In the current international and US perspective, the use of chemical weapons (CWs) is the focal problem in the Syrian conflict.

In solidarity with US, its allies including Britain and France (belligerents) have expressed the urgency to destroy Syria’s chemical arsenal, and they are aimed at pressing for a strong UN Security Council resolution that will enforce such disarmament even through military action (Gordon, 2013). The belligerents have a common view of the underlying problem, which according to them is the loss of life through violence and CWs, which are used against international laws. The US views the illegal use of CWs as a justification for military intervention (Gordon, 2013). As such, the President Obama has been to the Congress with an aim of consulting on the possibility of implementing a strike on Syria. Contrastingly, allies to Syria (non-belligerents) including Russia, China and Iran are against the implementation of a military strike. They may have no outright power to stop the US from implementing a strike akin to the one in Iraq, but if this has to get the UN Security Council approval, then, they stand to significantly influence the decisions in such a case because they have membership in the council (Gordon, 2013). The non-belligerents recognize the underlying problems of human lose and illegal use of CWs, but their view on the possible approaches to solving this problem differ from the US and its allies. This strong stand has been witnessed even as President Obama visited Moscow, and made consultations with President Vladimir Putin on the Syrian issue. Apparently, Russia agrees to the disarmament, but it strongly stands against any strike. Notably, the Syrian problem is a global problem of concern to all peace-loving nations, and especially, nations under the UN (Gordon, 2013). However, there is great lack of harmony on how to tackle it. This may partly be attributed to the fact that the problem is multifaceted. While the actual underlying problem is political, other twists to the conflict have made the problem a military problem as options of considering military strikes emerge. Additionally, to interested non-belligerent parties the problem takes an economic twist because of their great trade ties with Syria.

Russia particularly cares and opposes the use because of economic and ideological reasons (Yan, 2013). Russia is Syria’s biggest supplier of military equipment, and it also has military interests in Syria, which include a naval facility as Tartus that offers its only access to the Mediterranean. This strategic military facility makes this problem a military problem to Russia. In addition to these strategic interests, Russia is also generally opposed to the idea of the US shaping the region through its influence and ideology, and it often points to Iraq and the Arab spring as problems under this consideration (Yan, 2013). Therefore, Russia aims at preventing US political influence in region as well as preserving its economic relations. As part of this opposition, Russia currently holds that there is no sufficient proof to show that the Syrian government has used CWs. Like Russia, Iran is also opposed to any military strike on Syria because Syria is its key ally by virtue of the fact that the two nations share strategy and religion (Yan, 2013). Syria is Iran’s key ally in handling its threats, and therefore a threat to Syria is an equal threat for Iran. China, another key non-belligerent prefers the pursuit of a political solution even though hopes for such an end have waned (Yan, 2013). Like other non-belligerents it is opposed to military strikes, just as it did for Libya’s case. This is perhaps because the nation is Syria’s third largest importer (Yan, 2013). As a key trade partner, it therefore has interests in the issue. All belligerents matter in this situation partly because China and Russia are permanent members at the UN Security Council. As such, they determine what decisions are adopted, and they are likely to be against US military options (Yan, 2013). On the other hand, Iran matters in this issue because of its military might bolstered by its nuclear programs, which are a possible threat to any US intervention. In a nutshell, the whole Syrian situation presents a mix of political, economic and military problems, which challenge the bid to seek possible interventions. However, in the end, there are two sides-one led by the US and its allies and another by Russia and other non-belligerents. The two sides have opposing views due the fact that they hold different interests (Yan, 2013).

In view of this, there are various factors that the US needs to consider before reaching any decision. Firstly, there is a need to know that whether the Syrian government has actually used chemical weapons. The legality of a strike without UN’s approval will be very questionable, and may lead to cases such as Iraq where there has been no solid prove of CWs, which supposedly prompted US military intervention (Barnes-Dacey, Anthony & Daniel, 2013). Proof beyond doubt on this will be very positive in seeking support on implementing a military strike. Otherwise, if this is missing, then Russia and its allies have a ground to oppose the US and its plans. A military strike may serve to discredit the US and its allies if there is no sufficient proof. Another important consideration is resource-based. The past wars have taken a toll on the US economy, and a lone strike will even increase costs, and may worsen if unfortunate events such as the intervention of Iran occur supported by nuclear weapons. If the US is to strike and do so effectively without great costs on its economy, it needs support, which can only be obtained legally at the UN. Another important question that the US should be asking is; what will be the potential trajectory of the Syrian conflict after a military intervention? (Barnes-Dacey et al. 2013) Though the US and its allies state that such intervention will be limited in scope to CW neutralization, it will definitely impact on the balance of power on the two sides of the conflict. Tipping the precarious balance may also initiate other challenges such us the intervention of Syrian allies such as Iran to offset the imbalance. This could possibly widen the scale of the conflict an open a new front. The US should also be asking itself whether striking for the purpose of eliminating CWs can contribute to the overall solution of the problem in Syria (Barnes-Dacey et al. 2013). Eliminating CWs without solving the political problem holding the roots to the Syrian conflict may have little to no effect in ending the problem, and at worse it could raise more problems.

In conclusion, there is no clear path to the solutions necessary for the dilemmas existent on the Syrian issue. However, it seems the pursuit of a slow, but cautious path may be the best in bringing long-term solutions to the problem. On a personal opinion, and which is reflective of the population’s view, a political solution would be the best choice now that other non-belligerents support the disarmament. Once the CW problem is over, there will be no need for military intervention because the scales will be on a balance.

References

Barnes-Dacey, J. Anthony, D. & Daniel, L. (2013). Eight things to consider before intervening in Syria. Retrieved from http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_eight_things_to_consider_before_intervening_in_syria

index.html

Gordon, R. M. (2013). U.S. and Allies Push for Strong U.N. Measure on Syria’s Arms. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/us-and-allies-tell-syria-to-dismantle-chemical-arms-quickly.html?_r=0

Hosenball, M. (2012), Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret U.S. support for Syrian rebels. Reuters, retrieved fromhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801

Kumar, N. (2013). Syria crisis: More signs US involvement in civil war may be greater than first anticipated as Obama looks to boost rebels: Increased support will include sending expert Army personnel. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/syria-crisis-more-signs-us-involvement-in-civil-war-may-be-greater-than-first-anticipated-as-obama-looks-to-boost-rebels-8802694.html

Yan, H. (2013). Syria allies: Why Russia, Iran and China are standing by the regime. CNN, retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]