Syria’s Civil War
The civil war going on in Syria has been a topic of much discussion. What began as peaceful protests has turned into brutal civil war with over 100,000 deaths and counting. The images of men, women, and children being gassed or shot to death are just horrible to watch and hard to bear. With all these casualties and the U.S government expects to make a series of targeted military strikes against the Syrian government?
Syria is a country in the Middle East, along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Syria is very diverse, ethnically and religiously. The country’s population is divided among Sunni Arabs (a little less than 60 percent of the population); Christians (about 10 – 12 percent); Alawites, a Shiite offshoot also about 10 – 12 percent); Druze (about 6 percent); and various, mostly Sunni, ethnic minorities, primarily Kurds and Armenians (Carpenter 1-2).
The President of Syria is called Bashar al-Assad, who succeeded his father Hafez al-Assad after the latter's death in 2000. Hafez al-Assad had ruled Syria ruthlessly for 30 years. Throughout his rule, Hafez was forced to devote his time and energy to matters of defense and foreign affairs. As a result, the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is, as the Middle East commentator David Lesch has pointed out, “a child of the Cold War and the Arab- Israeli conflict” (qtd. in McHugo). Neither was caused by Syria, but the country suffered terribly as a result of both.
The massacre started in April 2011, when peaceful protesters all around the Middle East rose up to challenge the dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian government responded by kidnapping, raping, torturing and killing activists and their family members, including a lot of children. The situation drastically changed on August 21st 2013, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children in the suburbs of Damascus.
In 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. When Syria used those chemical weapons they committed a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war. Thus the United States had to take action and let the government of Syria know that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated and that the disposal of them will be of outmost importance.
As a result of the civil war going on in Syria, new groups of terrorists were formed that could prove troublesome in the future and be given the freedom to plan international attacks. Such groups include Jabhat al-Nusra, The Free Syrian Army and Hezbollah. Jabhat al-Nusra or Al-Nursa Front is made up of rebel forces that have pledge their allegiance to Al-Qaeda and are against the Syrian government. The Free Syrian Army is composed of defected Syrian Armed Forces personnel and volunteers and is the main opposition against Syria (Tabler, Totten 28).
Lastly, Hezbollah a Shi’a Islamic militant group and political party based in Lebanon. Hezbollah is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world, and its military is considered more powerful than the Lebanese Army. It has taken the side of the Syrian government and its civil war. For thirty years, Syria has offered protection and facilitated a pipeline of money and arms from Iran. With Syrian and Iranian help, Hezbollah has become the most powerful force in Lebanon (Filkins).
The United States has already intervened in Syria over the past year, and it should continue to do so with a focus on diplomacy aimed at getting other countries to pull their weight and exert their influence to stop the violence in Syria. Military intervention will only intensify the violence, not reduce it. As the veteran foreign correspondent and Syria expert Patrick Seale has written: “The only way to prevent a full-scale civil war in Syria . . . is to demilitarize the conflict and bring maximum pressure on both sides to negotiate” (qtd. in Hasan).
The United States needs a new approach, one that starts with a more diplomatic solution aimed at pushing all sides to the negotiating table. The only way the U.S can resolve this crisis is by working together with the Syrian government and getting other countries to exert their influence and persuade the Syrian government to turn in their enormous stockpile of chemical weapons.
The idea of military intervention will just increase the casualties in both sides. For example, after NATO’s air assault on Yugoslavia kicked off in March 1999, the number of civilian casualties and refugees in Kosovo went up, not down. In Iraq and Afghanistan, tens of thousands of innocents lost their lives at the hands of western troops as well as home-grown terrorists (Hasan). Furthermore, in their book “Why Civil Resistance Works”, the US academics Erica Chenoweth and Maria J Stephan challenge the conventional wisdom that the use of force against heavily armed opponents is the most effective way for resistance groups to achieve their aims. They discovered that the historical record between 1900 and 2006 shows non-violent campaigns were more than twice as effective (53 per cent compared to 26 per cent) at securing change, even against repressive dictators (Hasan).
The Syrian civil war also has had negative effects globally. It already has had a bad effect on the relationship of the United States with both Russia and China. Disagreements about how to deal with the fighting and chemical weapons in Syria have produced bitter complaints on both sides. These disagreements between the three would not bode well for them in the future.
Following a February 2012 decision by both Moscow and Beijing to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the violence in Syria and calling for an immediate end to the bloodshed, US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice denounced those vetoes and stated that her country was “disgusted.” The Chinese and Russian actions, she added, were “shameful” and “unforgivable” (Carpenter 8). In addition later that month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used equally harsh language. “It is distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto while people are being murdered — women, children, brave young men,” Clinton said the Russian and Chinese actions were “just despicable, and I have to ask whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people” (Carpenter 8).
Bringing down Assad’s government does not serve Russian or Chinese any national interest. Moscow has long-standing economic and strategic ties with the Syrian government not only under Bashar Assad but earlier under his father as well. The Soviet Union supplied Damascus with generous amounts of economic and military aid throughout the Cold War, and that relationship has persisted since the collapse of the USSR. Moreover, Russia’s “naval maintenance facility” at the Syrian port of Tartus is the only military installation that country has today in the Mediterranean region (Carpenter9-10).
China was Syria’s largest trading partner in 2011, with Syrian exports to that country totaling more than $2.4 billion. China is also a major participant in Syria’s oil industry, which until the onset of fighting was on the rise. Policy regarding the Syrian civil war has worsen disagreements between the Western powers of both Russia and China, about not only Middle East issues but the acceptable extent of great power interventions in the international system(Carpenter 9-10).
In contrast, there are also those who think that by removing Assad’s regime using military force, will not only solve the problem in Syria but also deter any terrorist group from using chemical or nuclear weapons. These include Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies, backed by the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, are those who want to remove Assad, not just because he is a brutal, corrupt leader, but because he is Iran’s primary ally in the region. Assad’s fall would significantly undermine Iran’s position (Carpenter 4).
There is a level of understanding that a military strike would force the Assad regime to give up their chemical weapons, but at what cost? Is it worth it? What if Assad continues to use chemical weapons even after the military strike? Violence will just produce more violence and it will just end with an unnecessary shed of lives. In conclusion, whether there is a military strike or not in the end no matter what is done there will always be conflict and death, it is inevitable. At least if we take the diplomatic solution and the Assad regime agrees to turn in their chemical weapons and leave the office, there will certainly be less bloodshed. This can only be accomplished with the help and support of other nations with the goal of weakening and removing Assad’s regime from power. As complex as the Syrian crisis has become, one thing is clear: the longer it lasts, the greater the threat it poses and the harder it becomes for the United States to do anything about it.

Works Cited
Sen, Kasturi, and Waleed Al-Faisal. “Reforms and Emerging Noncommunicable Disease: Some Challenges Facing a Conflict-ridden Country—the Case of the Syrian Arab Republic.” The International Journal of Health Planning and Management 28.3 (2013): 290–302. Wiley Online Library. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.
This paper explores the current challenges facing its health system from reforms, civil strife and international sanctions all of which we argue have serious implications for population health.
Carpenter, Ted Galen. “Tangled Web: The Syrian Civil War and Its Implications.” Mediterranean Quarterly 24.1 (2013): 1–11. mq.dukejournals.org. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.
This article discusses Syria’s long-term implications not only for the country but for the Middle East as a whole, and even for the international system.
Gourevitch, Philip. “The Syria Dilemma.” New Yorker 88.16 (2012): 49–50. Print.
In this article the author discusses the political conflict in Syria, particularly instances of alleged genocide being carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's security forces against its citizens. The author comments on the failure of the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to intervene to stop such actions. Relations between Syria and Russia, the Libyan conflict of 2012, and U.S. foreign policy are also explored.
Hasan, Mehdi. “Exploding the Four Myths About Intervention in Syria.” New Statesman 141.5110 (2012): 21–21. Print.
The article focuses on the myths surrounding intervention in Syria in 2012. The author examines if military interventions would save lives in Syria, the Syrian opposition's desire for foreign intervention, and the effectiveness of non-violent resistance. Information is provided on the use of diplomacy as a peace strategy.
Filkins, Dexter. “After Syria.” New Yorker 89.2 (2013): 48–57. Print.
The article discusses the Lebanese political party and movement Hezbollah, and comments on its relationship with the government of Syria and the potential that it may not survive if Syria's government falls. Tense relations between Sunni Muslims and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the influence of Lebanese-Israeli relations on the party are also explored.