Niccolo Machiavelli’s Il Principe (The Prince) was first distributed in 1513. Fast forward 500 years, and now you have a world whose reality maybe different from the world in which Machiavelli resided, but only on the surface. The nature of human beings have stayed the same, and that includes the nature of human conflicts, regarding which, Machiavelli had this to say:
“There are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method proper to men, the second to beasts; however, because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second.”
I know that the chances are quite high that you will not agree with me on the subject I am about to discuss, and the reason I can say this with a fair amount of certainty is because the subject I am about to discuss - the issue I am going to advocate for - is military intervention in Syria by the United States Armed Forces. And I can understand your disagreements. Whether you are an American, or a citizen of some other nation, the last decade has left nearly everyone across the globe fatigued by war - both emotionally and economically. Besides, the fact of the matter is... nobody likes wars. Nobody likes wars; nobody likes to watch pictures of dead children; hear stories of families being torn apart due to displacement. It is all very depressing; and I count myself amongst those who do not like wars.
Oddly enough, it is precisely because I do not like wars that I am advocating for a limited military strike against the regime of Bashar al Assad. It is precisely because I am against wars, I believe that the time has come to opt for the method proper to beasts rather than the method proper to men.
The civil war in Syria has raged on for more than two years now. More than a hundred thousand people have died. More than two million people have fled their homes. From the very onset of this crisis the international community had been trying to bring about a cessation of violence through a political solution - the first method of contesting: by the law - and every single time they have ran into obstacles. At the United Nations Security Council, Russia and China have vetoed resolution after resolution that simply condemned the al Assad regime. The Syrian government and the Syrian National Council does not even want to talk to each other. All options for a political solutions had already been exhausted.
Then, on August 21st, 2013, for the first time in the 21st century, chemical weapons were used by a government against its own citizens. If all options for a political solutions had already been exhausted before, the hopes a political solution is now gone.
Despite all these, I have heard a range of arguments from people who are vehemently opposed to any military intervention: The United States should not act as the world’s policeman; it will cause even more bloodshed; it is their war, let them settle it.
Prima facie, they all sound good. But dig a little deeper and you will notice flaws in every single one of them. But let’s start with the “it’s their war” argument. Yes, it is their war; but think of what will happen should the U.S not intervene. It will only embolden Bashar al Assad and others like him to use chemical weapons more frequently; the killing will only escalate. Not holding the al Assad regime accountable for their actions provides them a get out jail free card. You will see more pictures of dead children on t.v, you will hear more stories of displacement. On the other hand, if the rebels win, the first question they will ask themselves is “where was the international community when needed them the most?” The rebel ranks are filling up Islamist militants; they will present this question to the citizens. And if there is no American military intervention now, they will persuade the Syrians to turn their country into a terrorist base. So, if you think a limited strike against the al Assad regime is not in the national interest of the United States, think again.
The “it will cause more bloodshed” argument falls flat on its face. The very nature of the strikes would be to reduce, if not eliminate, the capability of the al Assad regime to attack the citizens of Syria. Would there not be civilian casualties during the strike? Yes; in all probability there would be. But if al Assad goes unchecked, there would be far more civilians being massacred on a daily basis for the foreseeable future. The strikes would bring the massacres to a halt, and the loss of a few to prevent the loss of many is worth the sacrifice.
And finally, the “U.S should not act as the world’s policeman” argument. This is, strangely, a favorite among liberals, conservatives, Americans, and non-Americans alike; and this is the one argument that worries me the most. As I mentioned before, if the U.S does not strike al Assad for his actions it will embolden him to take more actions. He will be pushing the boundaries to see how far he cab go before someone says stop; until finally, one day, a headline will appear on the news: “Syria Attacks Israel”. If not Syria, then Iran, or someone else, and if not Israel, then Turkey, or someone else. What the neo-isolationists do not understand is that the world is shrinking fast: a tweet sent from the Guangdong can easily reach California, but so can an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The world needs a policeman because there are international laws that all nations must abide by. If there is no cop to enforce the law, then chaos will be the norm. If the United States, the country that was founded upon the notion that all were created equal, is not present to provide protection to those who aspire to introduce the same notion in their countries, no one will ever seek equality again, and those who do will be prosecuted. I have heard some Americans refer to their country as a “once great nation;” a wrong assumption given that the United States has the biggest economy and the greatest military might. Should the United States sit on the sidelines while tyrants massacres their people, that assumption will turn into a reality.
The decision to go to war is never an easy one, and it is always unpopular, even when it comes with guarantees that there will be no boots on the ground and it would be limited in time and scope. And I know, despite all the arguments I laid down for a limited strike against the al Assad regime, there will be still be many among you who would be vehemently against it. Despite my arguments, and despite Edmund Burke’s warning that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
If you happen to be one of those against the limited strike, ask yourselves just one question: how many more people need to die before you change your mind? How many more?
