On Saturday, April 14, the US, UK, and France launched missiles upon several locations in Syria that are thought to have affiliations with chemical weapons. This response to the chemical attack that occurred in Douma on April 7th was lead by the US president, Donald Trump. All of the countries that fired missiles believed that the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad was the suspect behind the attack that crossed the "red line" set by all countries. The missiles were targeted at a Syrian chemical weapons storage facility and a chemical equipment storage facility that were both located in the city of Homs and a research center in greater Damascus that is affiliated with chemical weapons research. In total 110 missiles, like the US Tomahawk cruise missiles and Storm Shadow missiles were targeted at Syria, however because of the prior threats made by the US president, Syria was more prepared for an attack. This allowed the Syrian defense system to be bolstered which resulted in the interception of some of the 110 missiles. Despite this, missiles still hit all three targets and President Donald Trump called it a "mission accomplished." In response to these attacks, Russia and Iran who are major supporters of Assad have condoned the actions made by these three countries but refuse to perform any action in response, as the Russians fear the escalation of the already tense atmosphere. Assad, in response to the attacks has remained relatively unfazed, as he and his supports have called the attacks a "crime."
Discussion Questions:
1. Was the use of missiles an effective way to deter Assad from using chemical weapons?
2. Was it just for the US, UK, and France to target Assad without any solid proof of his use of chemical weapons
3. Judging on how complex the situation in Syria is, was this move too aggressive in terms of sparking a new war?
4. Is there a better way for the US to diffuse the situation around chemical weapons?
No, I do not think that the use of the missiles against Syria and Assad was effective or will be effective if used in the same way in the future because, as you said, Assad has remained relatively unfazed and there is no way the US, UK, or France will be able to destroy all of Syria’s chemical weapon storage facilities. Assad’s government can also just make more or obtain more from other sources. According to a Washington Post article titled, Everything you need to know about chemical weapons, Syria has some production facilities for nerve agents and mustard gas, and has, in the past, received chemical weapons from Egypt and the Soviet Union. While there might not have been solid proof that the chemical attack happened, we all know that it is likely that it did given the information surrounding the attack and the past actions of the Assad regime, so I think the actions of the attacking countries were totally justified. This is also backed up by the fact that the countries that are supporting Assad haven’t made any actions in response to this attack, so they must know on some level that the attacks against Assad’s chemical weapons storages were justified. However, I don’t think that the US should have actually directly attacked in the region because of the current tensions there. The risk of war is just too high considering Assad has Russian backing and there is so much conflict already in the area. I think it would have been better if the US responded by supporting the UK and France in their attacks, but not actually attacking as to remove themselves from being directly involved in the event of a war.
ReplyDeleteThe use of missiles against Assad most likely turn out to be not effective because, as stated, Assad has remained unfazed. As Nathan has pointed out, there is no current way for the US, UK, and/or France to destroy all of Syria’s chemical weapon storage facilities, and it doesn’t prevent Syria from creating new ones. Though it is likely chemical weapons were used given information given and past attacks, it is probably justified to have attacked. The nature of the attack (directly attacking the region) was an unwise decision, as tensions around those areas are currently high, and such an aggressive move could spark a new war. For the US, as Nathan said, it probably would have been best for the US to have supported the UK and France, and to not have directly attacked them self. Now, if a war does break out, the US will be directly involved.
ReplyDeleteJudging from Assad’s history of ruling Syria with an “iron fist” for nearly two decades, it only reinforces that Assad is not a man who will give up without a fight. In other words, missiles will not make Assad back down from using chemical weapons. In addition, these missiles most likely gave Assad a solid reason to attack via chemical weapons again. As Assad was fully prepared for defense, he will most likely be prepared for offense as well. Timing plays a key role in this crisis between Syria and US, for a certain move at the wrong time will quickly escalate into war, judging from Assad’s and Trump’s personalities. Regarding the topic of justification, the US, UK, and France may seem rather harsh on their attacks. However, one must look closer into the investigation. According to the UN investigation, the rockets found at the impact sights are of Russian origin, and the munition is one that is used by Syrian government. Since the Russian government and Syrian government are close allies, it is hard to ignore the high chance that the attack was carried out by the Syrian government rather than some terrorist group. Add the fact that the munition is one used by the Syrian government, it only isolates the Syrian government even more. And as everyone knows, Assad, a much powerful leader, controls and dictates the Syrian government. Because of these facts and pieces of evidence, the US, UK, and France have a solid reason to target Assad. However, it definitely is not just as they are just speculating rather than trying to seek out even more evidence before carrying out attacks.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that the missile attack was effective in trying to deter Assad from using chemical weapons because as you said Assad was unfazed by the attack. I think that Assad will eventually keep using the chemical weapons until something worse happens to him or to his country. I think that the US, UK and France's attack on Syria was justified since there was proof that there Syria was the cause of the chemical attack. The US, UK and France could have been suspicious because of the actions that have happened during his regime so far. If further attacks are planned and taken to action, it could possibly lead to a war between Syria and its allies and the US, UK and France.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe it was a very effective way to deal with Assad & the chemical weapon issue. As you said, he was unfazed, therefore proving that the attack wasn't really effective. It wasn't a big enough "move" to make Assad react, but I don't think any further violent steps should be taken in the meantime. It could raise already great tensions even higher and result in war or massive conflicts. If actions like this keep being taken, war will most definitely be a result. But, if violent advances are being taken by Syria or its allies in the future, and an attack from the US or its allies is justified & supported, then I will believe that such an action could possibly be effective.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that this specific missile attack was not effective in actually deterring Assad, as it did not hit anything of importance, it sends and important message to the regime. It is important for America to keep its stake in international affair firm, as America has spent many years placing that stake. This action shows Assad that the use of chemical weapons is not something that will be ignored by the three super powers known as the US, Britain, and France. While it may have been an expensive message, it was still an important message and shows that Trump may not always blindly follow his idiotic claim of "Make America[and only America] Great Again", but may also attempt to help in international politics. Cool
ReplyDelete