In March 2011, a civil war began in Syria in an effort to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad and the Ba’ath Party. By June 2013, the reported death toll reached 100,000 – approximately half of those deaths were civilians.
But other nations, including the U.S., did not react to the Syrian Civil War with urgency until last week – when the Syrian government was accused of using chemical weapons to kill protestors and rebels.
Because of this, President Obama and his administration have decided to shoot missiles toward Syria. According to BBC News, the missiles will be shot at Syria from warships or submarines at a far distance. However, no matter how far or where from these missiles are shot, it is still a horrific decision – one that may lead to an even worse aftermath.
Although the U.S. plans on shooting missiles toward Syria, the plan is to maintain limited intervention. But in the past, efforts to keep involvement to a minimum have failed.
During World War I, for example, the U.S. initially opted to practice a policy of isolationism, in which it would refrain from entering alliances, foreign commitments and international affairs. However, after the Germans used unrestricted submarine warfare, the U.S. ultimately played a key role in World War I.
According to officials, the purpose of the missiles is to punish the Syrian government for killing its own people. But the missiles will only add to the casualties in Syria. The goal of peace and a proper society will never be met.
Shooting missiles toward Syria has untold potential negative outcomes. For one, U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war could cause its allies – Iran, Russia and China – to fight on behalf of Assad. Tension between the U.S. and Syria can also have an impact on the global economy by increasing oil prices.
There’s no need for the U.S. to attack Syria. In the short-term, it will only make the situation worse. A few moments of retribution are not worth years of inescapable war.
Christina Largie is a freshman majoring in public relations.