Intervening in Syria

Oliver Knox, on Yahoo! News, wrote an article today entitled "McCain Calls for U.S. -led airstrikes in Syria."In it, Knox quotes McCain in saying "the time has come for a new policy. . . The United States should lead an international efforct to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad's forces."

I can see where McCain is coming from on this one: He's trying to act as a police force against President Assad and his forces in Syria; however, it's directly undermining a U.N. veto against such actions. Personally, I do think something more should be done to pressure President Assad into not only allowing aid into all parts of the country to aid the victims of the violent crackdown on the rebellious populous; but also ending his crackdown on the rebellion.

However, I oppose Senator McCain's views on how to go about forcing President Assad to stand down. Not only does it violate a U.N. resolution, as I said before; but it further escalates the conflict in Syria. Airstrikes, even in today's technologically advanced era, are still all not that precise: In the initial invasion of Iraq, airstrikes were responsible for 31% of civilian deaths, according to a Washington Post article entitled "Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000" (Link). Plus, not to mention the possibly causalities that we could receive as a result of such operations.

Also, starting a militaristic intervention on behalf of the rebels could have drastic, unintended consequences: If it doesn't lead to an all-out war, or cold war as I wrote about in a previous article; the rules of engagement could change for the Syrian army. What if they were to occupy the cities and civilian buildings instead of surrounding the city? Would we still deem it safe to continue bombing? What if the Syrian Army decides to completely level the cities via their own airstrikes?

Escalating the situation to a military intervention is definitely not the answer to ending the crisis in Syria. Nations must work together to come to a resolution on the issue and not act independently to advance their own agenda (E.g. the U.S. airstriking the Syrian Army). This is a very delicate situation that should be the of the utmost importance on the world stage to find a resolution to end this conflict, so that further bloodshed of non-combats is ceased.