Within this article posted within the New York
Times it discusses the three options that the United States can decide in
response to the chemical attack in Syria. While the most mentioned topic to
respond would be punitive airstrikes there are others to consider. Americans typically
want a low-cost and low-risk solution, however this time that may not be the
answer. A Cato Institute analyst wrote in response on twitter asking Americans,
“For those who want a military response, the
question is simple: can you tell me any practical response short of
full-fledged invasion that could prevent this”. The first option to consider
would be to “termed the sort of limit and punish strikes”, meaning that we
would make sure Mr. Assad is aware that future chemical weapons will not be
tolerated. By doing this it would avoid
the chance of war, but most of the time this option fails. The first reason
they fail is do to people do not take it seriously and are not willing to give
up their chemical weapons. The second reason it fails has to do with the allies
Mr. Assad has with Russia who would then assist him through this process. The second
option would be increase the price of war for Syria. By arming anti-government rebels,
the price goes up. This option typically does not work since Mr. Assad and
Russia can escalate the battle and compete for the competition. The last option
would be either a full intervention or strikes that “existentially threaten the
Syrian government”. The risk with this option would be the potential collapse of
the Syrian government, if it would fail then millions of people would be living
in chaos.
Kaleigh Walsh
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/middleeast/syria-us-chemical-weapons.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront
No comments:
Post a Comment