The White House seems to be wanting to go to war with the Syrian regime, because of a supposed chemical weapons attack by the government against the rebels. Hopefully Obama keeps his cool, like he did with the last time there was talk of chemical weapons being used. Overall, no matter what, whether there were chemical weapons used or not, we should not get involved in the civil war in Syria.
Let me explain:
If there were chemical weapons used, there is only one organization that can step in, and that is the United Nations. International law dictates that we cannot go in and stop it on our own, or with warmonger allies like France or the United Kingdom. (Yes, warmongers. They have been getting more aggressive since G. W. Bush left office.) It would require a vote in the Security Council, and Russia and China have been supporting Assad, so the chances of them voting for, or abstaining from a vote on military action are slim. France and Britain do not seem concerned with the UN, but hopefully our administration will not follow the same path as they did in Libya. (Yes, that was another case where we should not have gotten involved in a civil war.)
Beyond the UN, a major problem with these reports of chemical weapon attacks is that they are coming from the rebels. If the reports had come from a trusted source first, it would be more acceptable to look into the accounts. (Doctors Without Borders is saying that chemical weapons were used, but can they say for certain that it was used by Assad’s forces?) From all accounts both sides of the conflict have been using chemical warfare, and would it seem farfetched for the rebels to stage the event? Also, a leader of one of the rebel groups stated that he knew that Assad ordered the attack himself. The networks picked this up as a firm indictment against Assad, but should not his position as a rebel cast anything he says into a slanted opinion? Along with that, the Washington Post reported that “Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said the United States was using allegations of chemical attacks as an “excuse” to intervene in Syria, accusing Washington and Europe of turning a blind eye while Saudi Arabia and Turkey — both backers of the anti-Assad rebellion — provide chemical weapons to foreign jihadi fighters in Syria.” This leads to even more questions about who we can trust, if we can trust anyone over there. The answer should be that we do not trust anyone over there, and so what they say should have a nugatory effect on our foreign policy.
With so many issues within Syria, and with international law, the United States should remain on the sidelines, and avoid getting rid of a regime that they despise in exchange for one they may despise more. Egypt anyone?