The crisis in Syria is still a major debate in the U.S., and people have their own views and ideas about how the conflict will turn out.
In 2011, the Arab Spring, which is defined by the Macmillan Dictionary as “a series of activities ranging from political protests, to civil war that happened in a number of Arab countries, including Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria” occurred. This event inspired citizens from all over the world to protest against the Assad regime.
In response to the protests, the Assad regime opened fire on the protestors, kidnapping, torturing and killing citizens. Since then, the crisis has escalated, leading to the use of sarin gas, which is “a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent,” according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC also stated, “nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents.”
Allegedly, these weapons were used either by the Assad regime or the Syrian rebels on Aug. 21, 2013.
Richard Spencer, a Middle East correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, said in his article, “Syria has disclosed details of its chemical weapons inventory for the first time in a filing to an international organization.”
According to Spencer, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) analysts say the regime has about 1,000 tons of stocks including sarin gas, VX nerve agent and mustard gas, along with delivery systems.
Since the use of chemical weapons in Syria, President Obama has made multiple speeches expressing his wish to intervene in the Syrian crisis.
According to Denis Rey, a government and world affairs professor at UT, the real issue for the U.S. is credibility. He stated that the U.S. has found itself in a predicament, because “if we do not hold credibility to the use of chemical weapons, then we will lose credibility.”
In one of his speeches, President Obama addressed that this crisis could be a threat to our national security. This means it would be in the nation’s interest to get involved, because the crisis could potentially affect American lives.
“Allowing Syria to break the international norm against the use of chemical weapons would eventually embolden other leaders to do the same someday,” said Liv Coleman, a government and world affairs professor at UT. “Those weapons could be used elsewhere against American troops and interests.”
Touching on the subject of U.S. credibility, Coleman said, “The U.S. has never shied from using force when it feels its interests are truly at stake, and others around the world know that.”
Although Coleman addressed the U.S. using force when its interests are “truly at stake,” Rey said, “Right now the U.S. does not have a direct interest in this crisis.”
Professor Wayne Farel, a specialist in economics, explained the role of money in the Syrian conflict.
“The U.S. is gaining [global power] already in the Syria conflict. In times of crisis people look to invest their money in U.S. dollars, because U.S. currency is considered to be stable,” Farel said. “This is called a ‘flight to quality’, or whoever holds more U.S. dollars will be able to spend more elsewhere because the currency will be more valuable.”
Although Rey said there is no direct interest in the Syrian crisis, the U.S. has allies in that region: Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey.
An international student from one of the U.S. allies, Lebanon, spoke out on behalf of their own experiences with the Syrian crisis being so close to home.
Sam Alshami, who studies computer science at St. Leo University, said there have been thousands of refugees pouring into Lebanon.
“I believe that this will damage the Lebanese economy, especially with tourists not coming to our country anymore,” Alshami said.
According to the World Bank, Syrian refugees will cost Lebanon $7.5 billion in cumulative economic losses by the end of next year.
In an article by Dominic Evans pointed out that the Syrian war, along with refugees, will cut real GDP growth by 2.85 percent per year between 2012 and 2014. It will also double unemployment to above 20 percent and widen the deeply indebted nation’s deficit by $2.6 billion.
Norma Winston, chair of the government and world affairs department and a sociology professor at UT, also weighed in on the Syria conversation.
“I don’t think there is much to be gained from once again, showing the world America’s might and force,” Winston said. “Additional lives would surely have been lost, and we would be left to ask whether we are any better than those who perpetrated the situation to begin with.”
Winston’s solution for U.S. involvement in Syria would be to “Hopefully get a group safely into Syria and remove the toxic substances. That done, we will all be able to hold our heads up in pride because we succeeded in dealing with this issue through peaceful conflict resolution.”
According to a survey by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, an organization that promotes cooperation between North America and Europe, 62 percent of Americans and 72 percent of Europeans believe their countries should avoid military intervention in Syria’s civil war.
Although there is no indication of what the U.N. plans on doing in Syria, the world will soon see how these potential alliances with world leaders will pan out in the Syrian crisis and whether they can join together to end this already 30-month conflict.