This letter is a response to an article entitled "Stay out of Syria" that ran in the April 16 edition of The Daily Gamecock. Another response to the same article, "Don't overreact or misinterpret U.S. strikes on Syria," also ran in the April 19 edition of The Daily Gamecock.
Recently, President Donald Trump ordered military action against the Syrian government for the second time during his presidency, this time supported by the United Kingdom and France. This strike targeted chemical weapons sites and military bases in an attempt to discourage further human rights violations by the Assad regime.
This operation was heavily criticized in the United States for numerous reasons, some of which were published in an opinion article in The Daily Gamecock. Chief among these were comparisons to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an event that is unfavorably remembered nowadays, despite the fact that it deposed a cruel dictator who slaughtered thousands of Kurds in brutal genocides and destabilized the region by starting multiple wars. Regardless, opponents to Syrian intervention argue that global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria is similar to the erroneous belief among the international intelligence community that Iraq had WMDs, further justifying invasion.
This claim discredits the fact that civilians in Syria have been actively targeted by dozens of well-documented chemical weapon strikes. Furthermore, conspiracy theorists choose to claim that these are “false-flag” attacks, despite the fact that multiple independent investigations, including the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism, have repeatedly provided evidence that the Syrian government has utilized chemical weapons multiple times, even recently. Obviously, this clearly violates the Chemical Weapons Convention to which Syria has been a signatory since 2013. These blatant human rights violations deserve a response, and diplomacy has only enabled the Syrian government.
Another key point raised by those concerned about military intervention is the possibility of escalation. Russia and Iran have both militarily backed Syria during the civil war. However, this fails to take into account the reasons both states have for propping up Assad. In short, both desire greater authority in the Middle East as Russia attempts to reassert itself as a great power and Iran builds a corridor of influence through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Although conflict with these nations, especially Russia, is certainly not desirable, curtailing their aggressive actions is. Furthermore, there is little chance of extreme escalation outside of erratic fears. The regimes governing Russia and Iran want to continue existing above all else, and choosing to escalate a conflict with the United States only places themselves at risk.
Lastly, an intervention in Syria promotes our ideals. Critiques of U.S. foreign policy often focus upon our hypocrisy, as we claim to support liberty and equality yet provide economic aid to tyrants. The United States has the opportunity to continue backing the Syrian Democratic Forces, a secular democratic rebel group. To abandon our allies now, after they have fought alongside us against tyranny and Islamic extremism, would be incredibly shameful.
Ultimately, we must recognize that military force is often an unfortunate yet necessary reaction to international issues, as history shows that a policy of appeasement is doomed to fail.
— Matthew Slaughter, fourth-year political science student