The calvary is flying in, but the war is just beginning
By Rathna Muralidharan
If history has taught us anything, it is that the U.S.’s diplomatic decisions have monumental effects on every nation in the world, whether they are directly involved with the issue or not.
Trying to find the balance between doing the right thing in the present and the future is a conundrum our nation’s leaders have struggled with since the formation of the U.S. Today, the stakes are still just as high as our government faces sending air missiles into Syria. Though this will most likely end the bloodshed in this war-torn country, the consequences are still unclear for the rest of the world. Before fixing the immediate problem, it is also important for our government to consider the possible repercussions.
We made Saddam Hussein our chosen dictator in Iraq, only to accuse of him of concealing “weapons of mass destruction” and eventually see him hung. We forced democracy upon Iraq and Iran when they weren’t ready for it, and now we are preparing to leave them in their hour of need, gaping and completely exposed to being overrun by terrorist groups and corrupt parties.
Congress’ and President Barack Obama’s approval of an air strike on the Assad regime will give a monumental boost to the Free Syrian Army and a chance to win this ordeal. But what happens next?
As Egypt has discovered, just winning the war isn’t enough. Democracies take decades, even years, to establish themselves and work effectively. In the case of Syria, the situation is messier and more complicated than in Arab Spring countries. Yes, the regime will be overthrown and the dictatorship finally terminated, but that doesn’t bring back all the lives lost. That doesn’t rebuild the buildings and towns destroyed. That doesn’t give the refugees their homes back.
The war will be over, but who really wins in the end?
Rathna Muralidharan is a freshman in the School of International Service.
US should consider past wars’ consequences, Americans’ interests
By Katlyn Hirowaka
War is costly, economically and socially. After a decade of these costs from the War on Terror, the American people are wary of an international conflict with Syria that could have damaging consequences.
The debate on whether the War on Terror was justified split our country into two sides. Conflict between Democrats and Republicans became worse because of the War on Terror, and Syria could have the same effect. This country is extremely partisan as it is, and another war overseas will only intensify these relations. This is a period during which we need to be united and focus on our own domestic issues.
President Barack Obama is in a difficult position in deciding whether or not to take action against Syria. Our country has seen how military action can affect a president’s reputation, as in former President George W. Bush’s controversial decision to go to war with Iraq. There is also a credibility aspect when it comes to Obama’s stance on Syria due to his prior statement that if Syria were to use chemical weapons against its own people, then he would push for military action.
However, the majority of American people are opposed to attacking Syria. USA Today reported that six in 10 U.S. citizens are not in favor of attacking Syria. There are also many countries whose citizens are opposed to this as well, including Russia, Iran and China . It is clear that there is a huge risk in taking action against Syria, and our country may not be prepared for these consequences.
As U.S. citizens, we can choose to put our trust in the government to do what is right, but at the same time the government should listen to its people, especially as a majority opinion. We should ask ourselves whether or not it is in our own best interest to engage in another war in the Middle East when the majority clearly disapproves.
Katlyn Hirowaka is a freshman in the School of Communication.
Suggestions for topics and other ideas from readers are welcome and encouraged, so please submit comments to edpage@theeagleonline.com._
