Disturbing events have been happening in Syria lately and news that President Obama is planning a strike on the country is out. But how many can say they know the story of where this began and how it escalated?
Killings in Syria began back in April 2011. Peaceful protests brought on by earlier revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia began an attempt to challenge the dictatorship running the country. The government responded; they began kidnapping, raping, torturing, and killing activists and family members, dumping bodies by the side of the road. Troops opened fire on protesters and civilians eventually started retaliating.
A civil war erupted from the fighting. Rebel groups formed from the organization of armed civilians. The army was deployed across the country, terrorizing people into submission as they bombed whole neighborhoods and towns. Even chemical weaponry was applied, killing hundreds of civilians.
How did things escalate so fast and so badly? Multiple theories exist. Washington Post columnist and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria’s argument is that what is happening in Syria is an inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines. The country is run by Alawites, a minority sect, but most Syrians are Sunni Arabs. The government gives Alawites special privileges while ruling through a repressive dictatorship. In doing so, they turn Sunni Arabs against Alawites, making Alawites fearful of their enemies should Assad lose the war.
Another theory is that the Assad regime wasn’t sustainable in the first place. Power in Syria was seized by a coup in 1970 by Assad’s father, Hafez. The Soviet Union was his patron and the ideology he based his government on was very anti-western, causing tension with the United States. But after the Cold War ended and most of the region made peace with Israel and the United States, the ideology didn’t change. The Assad regime became outdated as the current leader Bashar al-Assad never bothered to update it after taking power in 2000.
So why is President Obama striking at them? Aiding the rebels would ultimately empower jihadists and encourage rebel in-fighting. Directly removing Assad would have a similar effect, creating a vacuum of power in the country, and any other option would draw our country in too far. The result would be the loss of many American lives and accelerating anti-Americanism, creating more problems.
Obama’s strikes are meant to punish Assad for using gas. This goes back to World War I, after which the Geneva Convention in 1925 decided to ban chemical weapons for being less a weapon of war and more a tool of terror. If Assad’s use of poisonous gas is ignored, it weakens the decision to ban them altogether.
No one can say in advance where the conflict will lead, but according to the country’s deputy prime minister, the conflict has reached a stalemate and Assad’s government is planning to call a ceasefire at a conference in Geneva.