By Samuel Richter
Republicans and Democrats alike can agree on one issue: the need for a United States intervention in Syria.
Ever since the Arab Spring, when citizens of the Syrian Ba’ath party government decided to take opposition against the corrupt government, protestors attempted to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.
In the mix of the chaos, al-Assad is believed to have used chemical weapons against his own people and deployed the Syrian army to silence the protesting by attacking innocent citizens.
Republicans want to supply the rebel soldiers in order to fight back against the government, while Democrats wish to set up refugee camps and shelters for those in need.
While the means of intervention is unclear, it is imminent that the United States directly intervenes in Syria in order to stop the violence that has already caused over 70,000 deaths.
The United States will not be sending in forces to defend Syrians, but cannot find a clear course of action for the time being.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) stated that putting troops in Syria would turn the people against America and would only cause more problems. But having no influence over the horrific events in Syria would cause poor relations with Iran, due to the Untied States ignoring Syria’s potential to host nuclear weapons.
There are many radical Islamists who could soon have their hands on nuclear weapons, and with conflicts between Iran and Syria this could cause major troubles in the Middle East.
However, it is possible for the United States to intervene in Syria without causing more hostility in the area. The expansion of humanitarian services would benefit the people of Syria without the need for the United States to tamper with Syrian foreign policy.
The United States needs to find a peaceful solution to how it will interfere with the war in Syria before it is too late. We cannot let the violence continue and must fight for human rights and democracy in the Middle East.