Syrian Missile Crisis

(For July 16th)

Governments are meant to be systems “for the people, by the people”.  If a government is corrupt, or does not meet the standards of its people, a nation’s direct response is usually to rise up and change that government. In the most extreme cases, governments may refuse to yield, fighting back against the people to remain in power by any means necessary. After having read up on foreign affairs, I’ve become intrigued by Syria’s current problems. I’ve become even more intrigued, however, at its response to these problems.

            Syria has been having increasing civil issues, fighting rebels and trying to contain unruly citizen protests. The number of rebels on its home front seems to exponentially increase as time goes on. As such, it makes sense for the Assad regime (the currently prevailing government) to crack down on citizens with restrictions/actions. However, recently Syria has begun to move massive quantities of chemical weapons out of storage, sparking intrigue and fear from citizens across the globe. Many now find themselves wondering if Syria will unintentionally set off a spark that could set the world ablaze.

            Any action that involves stockpiling weapons is cause for alarm. Syria has one of the largest chemical warfare stockpiles in the world, so the fact that it is relocating these weapons can indicate a possible threat to itself, or even the world, unless they can reassure others that the weapons will not be used to control these riots. Still, the United States has made it sound as though Syria posing a severe threat to others. It seems as though they compare the nation to a frightened, cornered, wild dog; they make it sound like Syria is acting unpredictably and could snap at any minute. Personally, I don’t see this as a great cause for alarm.

Rebel fighters of the Free Syrian Army

            The media in the US tends to make the actions of other countries seem more menacing then they are. My professor recently reminded me of the Iraq crisis, where the media leaked that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, this was falsely used as a means of securing US support to invade Iraq. The media may be pulling a similar trick here: using the fact that they are simply relocating those weapons to gain support for meddling in foreign affairs. Looking at the situation, it seems far-fetched that a country would use chemical weapons to control home front rebels. Attacking its own citizens seems like a last-chance effort to regain control, and would ultimately end in mass destruction. A true leader would attempt to regain control over the rebels, not destroy them and risk drawing unwanted attention from other uneasy nations.

            The main argument for the idea that weapons will be used on the home front is that rebel forces are becoming more advanced. The rebels tend to use guerrilla warfare tactics on regime soldiers, as one article says. While advancing rebellions can pose a threat, such would not be enough to justify the use of deadly chemical warfare on its own nation. Hopefully, Syria will publicly announce that it does not intend to do so, so as to put uncertainties at rest. Logically speaking, it seems like the media is just using this as a way for the US to gain a presence in other parts of the world. In a case like this, the ends wouldn’t justify the means.