The Student News Site of Loyola University Maryland

The Greyhound

The Greyhound

The Greyhound

Syrian intervention: U.S’ only hope?

By Katie Reinhard, Staff Writer

In the latest episode of producer Aaron Sorkin’s newest show, “The Newsroom,” the news reporters of the fictional ACN network release a false story accusing the military of using sarin gas on civilians in what’s known as “Operation Genoa.” They debate about whether or not to release the story to the public for so long because they know that it will cause serious worldwide implications, rebellions and military action. We find ourselves in this exact same situation right now.

Based on footage released by civilians in the suburbs of Damascus, as well as evidence found by British military scientists, an overwhelming majority of the world believes that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria used chemical weapons on his own civilians, mostly women and children. Traces of sarin gas were found in the soil and clothing taken from a patient who was treated for exposure to chemical weapons, according to CNN. The world finds itself in a catch-22, and right now, everyone is in limbo about what to do and when to do it. Obama wants to strike down on Syria to punish them for what they’ve done, yet Russia and China seem to be on Syria’s side in this. According to The Washington Post, Russia maintains support for Syria because of their naval installation presence in Syria, as well as the fact that they dislike international intervention, and receive a good amount of money from Syrian purchases of Russian military exports. These seem to buy slightly biased reasons to resist intervention in Syria, and I firmly believe that action by the U.S. is necessary to keep order and accountability in the world. Syria can, in no way, get away with what they’ve done.

Of course if we take action, the most obvious backlash as a world is biological weapons retaliation by Syria on most likely its neighbors. A Middle East intelligence official told The Washington Post, “We are worried about sarin, but Syria also has biological weapons, and compared to those, sarin is nothing.” Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, also told The Post that Syria’s bioweapons development has gone at least as far as research and development. At the very least, “That means they’re far enough along to have capabilities. It doesn’t take a huge leap to get from there to having the ability to weaponize or finding some other way to deliver.”

Another possible outcome of a strike against Syria is an inflation of oil prices, according to a Chinese official via NBC News. “Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price – it will cause a hike in the oil price,” Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao said at the G-20 summit in Russia.

Despite Obama’s desires to move forward with military action on Syria, Congress is still deliberating, and the U.N.’s Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, believes that the only viable solution is a political one. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy also believes that a military retaliation will not provide a solution, according to CNN.

So what will the final decision be? Hopefully one is reached soon. How can we as a nation sit back and let this action go unpunished when innocent lives are being ended in such awful, unwarranted ways? A stern talking-to to Syria from Obama and our allies probably won’t do much to reprimand Syria, and they’d be likely to try to get away with something like this in the future. Though consequences of a strike by the U.S. might potentially be dangerous, not doing anything could just be worse.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

All The Greyhound Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
Syrian intervention: U.S’ only hope?