Why People Are Hesitant to Intervene In Syria.

Since the chemical attack that took place on August 21 in Damascus and military action has yet taken place in retaliation to this attack. The red line has been crossed and the show for support of military intervention has yet to grow. Last week the British Parliament voted no on Cameron’s resolution for Syria. Germany and Canada have stated that they will not take place in any military operation that may take place. For the United States, the president has briefed some members of the House and the Senate. President Obama has also requested that both houses vote on the authorization of military force to be used on Syria.

However, with one of the United States key ally reframing from any military action for now it just displays the fears that government officials have of repeating the Iraq Invasion in 2003. I admit it myself that I am very hesitant about the United States getting involved in Syria. The civil war has raged on for two and a half years and no moves were made to attempt to end the civil war. There have been multiple reports that chemical weapons have been used by the Assad regime and the world did not act then. However, there is that one question that comes across my mind when I think about the chemical weapon attacks that have taken place in Syria. Why would the Assad government use WMDs knowing that it would grab the worlds attention and possibly lead to military intervention from the western world?

The facts are there that the Syrian regime is in possession of chemical weapons and witness reports have stated that they saw regime forces wearing chemical gear the day of the attack in Damascus. For me the reason why I am hesitant of getting involved militarily is the fact that Al-Qaeda militants have gained a foothold among the rebel groups. When we invaded Iraq we opened the door for terrorist groups to gain a place inside of Iraq. However, the reason for our invasion of Iraq is the same reason that the president is seeking authorization to go ahead with military operations in response to the chemical attack that took place on the 21st of August.

If we never invaded Iraq I strongly believe that the United States and it’s allies would have already taken military action against Assad. But with the events that led up to the war and revelations after the invasion the image of the United States and its intelligence agencies took a major hit. Before the U.N published it’s report we launched the offensive into Iraq. Then when U.N chiefs weapons expert Hans Blix reported that Iraq’s nuclear program was inactivate since the first Gulf War our country was caught in a lie.

The results of that war is seen to this day, the country faces terrorist attacks on a daily basis and the government is divide more then ever. Another result for the war, is that a branch of Al-Qaeda is beginning to gain strength in the country.

More than likely the U.N’s report from is latest visit in Damascus will show that chemical weapons were used in the attack. The United States as well states that it has strong reason to believe that Syria’s government used chemical weapons.

It is only a matter of time that the United States and other countries take part in military operations to assist the rebels. However, I don’t believe that a air campaign will be sufficient. There will have to be some form of security on the ready to secure the chemical weapons facilities in Syria. With the growing insurgency inside of the rebel group the location of those weapons and being secured is a priority. Threats have been made by Assad and his government stating that any attack on Syria will result in retaliation.

Can this conflict lead to a much more complicated problem? Will this set of a chain of events that leads to a wider conflict? Has the worlds delay lead to the problems we face now? Is there a plan for after the Assad government falls?