A Limited War?

The U.S. government finds itself preparing to attack the government of Bashar al-Asad in response to the supposed use of chemical weapons against rebels and the Syrian population in Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. This attack, according to the U.S., truncated the lives of 1,429 people, among these at least 426 being children. The nation also argues that having the free world let this type of massacre pass without a response would set a disastrous precedent.

Such conclusions, in addition to Obama’s commitment in August 2012 to the idea that the use of chemical weapons would mean overstepping “a red line” that Washington would not tolerate, allow one to infer that American bombs will fall on Syria sooner than later.

The purpose of this “limited strike,” according to Obama, would not be to overthrow Bashar al-Asad but rather to simply punish him in a timely manner in order to limit his ability to bomb the civil population of Syria. The problem is that it will bring with it consequences that are difficult to predict, given that the attack will take place in a relatively unstable region.

In addition to possibly causing a hopeless and aggressive reaction from the Syrian government that could spill over its borders, armed interventions are rarely effective solutions. On the contrary, they increase hatred and humanitarian tragedies and make the nation’s population more vulnerable.