Should the West intervene in Syria?

The Syrian conflict has gone on for far too long. I could fling out the dreadful figures of how many have died, how many are refugees, how many are internally displaced, but the trouble is they have become only that – figures, not unique representations of the human beings that have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of Assad and militant groups jostling for power over the opposition. These real people, who bleed, and break, and burn, and choke on the lethally poisonous gases fired at them by – as the media reports it – almost certainly the Syrian regime.

Something must be done. Or should it? Here is where I come up against a startling brick wall built by people whose opinions I usually understand and agree with; that actually, intervention by the West ought to be a complete no-no. Is this an ideological principle, or is it rooted in the fear that we will have another Iraq all over again? Does it stem from the belief that our governments are incapable of acting out of a sense of responsibility towards those who are suffering, that there always has to be self-interest involved?

The indignant comments I read mostly compare potential intervention in Syria with our invasion of Iraq, the obvious motives of greed and the spurious reasons of Saddam’s WMDs which were squirrelled away so expertly we never could find them. It’s a good thing to consider the motives of our governments for such interventions, but there is danger in this particular comparison. Danger because, first of all, we assume exactly the same motives spur our governments on to intervention in Syria (if there were economic benefits to entering into this mess, would the West not have dived in to the fray many months ago?). Secondly, and more significantly, there is the danger inherent in our automatic judgement that, just as with Iraq, our governments are creating evidence for atrocity where there is none. If we unquestioningly judge that the whole chemical weapons event in Ghouta was staged because WMDs in Iraq were a red herring, we are at risk of denying real, horrific suffering.

What particularly chills me to the bone is the opinion I have read more than once, that we ought to leave Syria to sort out its own problems. Not because I think the West ought to have influence over the political outcome of the conflict, but because I imagine what might happen if the roles were reversed, and I was one of those on the receiving end of a Sarin attack. Would another country then come to my aid? Yes, there might be political and economic gains for them to do so, and that begs the much bigger question of how the international community is regulated. But how would I feel about a world that never came to help? We ought to be concerned about what the consequences will be for international relations if we sit back and do nothing. Already, there are a million Syrian child refugees. When they grow up, how will they view the world that left them to ‘sort it out for themselves’? What precedent are we setting if we ignore the terrible human cost of the chemical weapons attack at Ghouta? Isn’t that the kind of soil that nourishes bitterness and hatred?

I don’t have answers to the question of what intervention could look like. I would simply like to open the debate a little on whether there ought to be intervention or not. At tho moment, those who are traditionally the voice for the voiceless in the large part seem to have closed that debate completely, along with any creative engagement in possibilities other than military force.


2 responses to “Should the West intervene in Syria?

  1. Thank you, Sarah, for that thoughtful piece: you have set out some cogent reasons for action, and in the spirit of hat you say, I have to agree. I am worried however on a number of points:
    GB is no longer a superpower: Cameron and Hague appear to be behaving as if it was, but in reality as a poor relation of the USA.
    The response being considered is about ‘punishment’ – rocket strikes: this doesn’t sound like ‘help’ to me
    Rocket strikes do not have a track record of bringing peace in the middle east: as an aside (and i hope you’ll forgive this) friend of mine, now a Minister of the church, had a tee-shirt. Across the font of her shirt was written in large letters “Fighting for peace is like f****** for virginity”.
    For many, I suspect the argument that military involvement, because of the above, is simply not value for money, so,
    If the UN has a purpose – at we pay millions of pounds each year to assert that it does – then a proposal to ride roughshod over its procedures is seriously flawed.
    Perhaps the pressure should be on the UN to act – if Obama and Cameron want to argue a case, then they should be pressing the UN to act. It may be that a military solution is a last resort, but it shouldn’t be the first line solution.
    But, just to repeat that Im moved by your argument that somethings should be done: to be sure some say let them sort out their own mess, but for many, like me, the objection is not to doing something, but to what they propose to do.

  2. Interesting post. I wrote something on a similar topic a while ago, you might be interested, baring in mind what you’ve written here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s