By Rob Shanholtz, News Correspondent
Adam Jlelaty’s father left Syria for the US in the 1980s to escape political persecution. His grandparents and other relatives, however, are still there, trying to escape.
“I guess all my life I have known it could happen,” he said. The sophomore civil engineering major knows intervention is needed, despite his belief that the American media could cover the situation more thoroughly – but isn’t sure that it should necessarily come from the US.
“I’m cynical about the US intervening in these kinds of issues because our track record is so bad,” he said.
Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, is alleged to have used chemical weapons during an Aug. 21 attack against Syrian rebels in the city of Damascus. US officials assert that chemical weapons caused the deaths of at least 1,400 civilians, including 400 children. At the request of President Barack Obama, US lawmakers are currently discussing the possibility of military intervention in Syria.
In 2011, a group of citizens protesting what they viewed as an oppressive government created conflict between the state police force and protesters. The police used force including tear gas to disperse the protesters. This resulted in further protests and violence, leading to the current civil war between the Assad regime and what has become known as the Syrian Opposition. The rebellion has been going on for over two years and involves a number of political, ethnic and religious factions.
While the war has continued nonstop since 2011, the US has not gotten involved beyond providing humanitarian relief and some small arms to the rebels. Obama stated at the beginning of the civil war that he had no intention of pursuing intervention in Syria unless chemical weapons were used.
“Previous to [the current chemical weapons stuff] I was against landing,” said Ryan Kernan, a freshman. “I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with an aerial attack, but I am not 100 percent for a ground attack.”
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” Obama said during a 2012 news conference in Stockholm, Sweden. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
US intelligence has confirmed that chemical weapons were used at the direction of Assad. Obama has proposed a military intervention plan that involves bombing strategic Assad controlled military targets in Syria but does not include putting “boots on the ground.”
“Yes, chemical weapons are banned by the United Nations and should not be used, but this war has been going on for several years now and if the US was going to step in, they should have done it by now,” said Alex Velto, a freshman who majors in criminal justice.
Chemical weapons have since been considered a moral and ethical red line for the Assad regime. According to associate professor of International Affairs Denise Garcia, the use of chemical weapons merit some response.
“The use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of International Law meriting urgent humanitarian action,” Garcia said in her recent piece published on the website of the Academic Council on the United Nations System. “It’s not legal even if Congress says ‘yes’ … or The Illegality of Intervention.”
There is, however, much debate on whether immediate US military action is the correct path.
“Why not wait until the U.N. inspectors release their findings?,” Garcia said. “This would be the most judicious solution for the United States. A military option is not the solution; negotiation is.”
Obama has not been able to secure broad international support for this action and a war-weary American populace appears to be against military action despite the graphic reporting of the effects of chemical warfare. A recent NBC poll try and find the exact date it was published revealed that 58 percent of viewers were against military action while 33 percent were in favor of intervention. In response, the president is seeking the support of Congress before initiating any military action.
According to Daniel Morrissey, president of Northeastern’s International Relations Council, any type of military action from the U.S. or other countries will be a complicated affair.
“There are many ethical and logistical issues with intervention,” said Morrissey. “In any sort of bombing or military campaign, you will have collateral damage.”
Under pressure from a possible military strike from the US, Syria indicated during a Sept. 9 conference with Russian diplomats it would put its chemical weapons under international control. The resolution would be drafted by the United Nations Security Council and according to the Washington Post, the resolution required the Syrian regime to reveal the details of their chemical weapons program and turn their weapons over to the international community where they will be dismantled. French diplomats said that military action will take place against Syria if they do not adhere to the resolution.
According to Morrissey, if Syria agreed to a peaceful resolution about chemical weapons it would be a step in the right direction.
“Any sort of nonviolent resolution to a conflict is a good opportunity,” Morrissey said.
Congress will meet in a week to determine if military intervention is still the best course of action, and the U.N. currently has plans to meet and discuss their resolution on the situation.
