Brittany McMurray is a senior political science major and writes ‘Mind of a Republican’ for The Daily News. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper or other members of the College Republicans organization. Write to Brittany at bgmcmurray@bsu.edu.
On Aug. 21, the Assad regime in Syria used the chemical weapon sarin to rid three suburbs north of the Syrian capital of rebel forces. There was estimated to be 1,400 casualties. Although these are staggering numbers, the Syrian civil war has resulted in over 100,000 casualties in total, 60,000 of whom were civilian or rebel forces, according to The Huffington Post.
So we must ask ourselves, why get outrage from chemical weapon casualties, which are just over 1.4 percent of the total casualties?
In 1925, the leaders of all the major world powers met in Geneva and agreed to ban the use chemical or biological weapons in warfare. They cited that the pain the victims of such attacks experienced were far too horrific to be used in warfare and had no place in the civilized world, according to Cornell University School of Law.
The Assad regime in Syria broke international norms, customs and laws by using these weapons. Laws that they, although it may seem absurd, did not break in the non-chemical weapon deaths of the estimated 60,000 non-regime personnel.
Since the attack, President Barack Obama and his administration have been issuing waves of propaganda to try to convince the American public as to why it is necessary to use military force in Syria. When Obama spoke to the American people, he was even unsure about a correct course of action. He presented arguments as to why U.S. intervention was necessary.
“If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons,” he said. “As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.”
Statements like these make it seem abundantly clear that the president supports intervention. Yet the latest proposal by the Russian government and President Bashar al-Assad’s agreement to forfeit his chemical weapons stockpile to United Nations control seems to have caused a great deal of indecisiveness within the Obama administration. The president didn’t completely ignore the Russian proposal that happened a day before his speech, stating during the same speech that the Russian proposal has “potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force.”
The president’s inability to deliver a concise and direct message leaves many Americans wondering where he stands on the issue. It also has made members of his own party very skeptical to support him. The bipartisan opposition to his proposed strike in Congress is unprecedented. Many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have voiced their strong opposition to military intervention.
We are looking to you to lead us, Obama. When you can’t even deliver a straight forward message, nor rally your own party in Congress to get behind you, it makes it very hard for us to follow. With the stakes so high, he must either wholly pursue a diplomatic solution or present a convincing case as to why military action is absolutely necessary. Until this point, he has failed to commit to either.
