United States should not strike in Syria


he United States has been known for doing what is right in any situation, regardless of the consequences. However, when the question of putting our own country in danger is at stake, maybe doing what’s right isn’t always the answer. The problems currently occurring in Syria have brought a lot of attention to the United States.

Syria has been involved an ongoing civil war for a while now, but the moment that chemical weapons became a problem between the Syrian government and the rebels, President Barrack Obama claimed they “crossed the line.”

Now here is the question: does the United States take action and strike against Syria or stay back and watch thousands of people die? The North Star staff thinks that striking in Syria would be a terrible move for us as we stand as a county.

Yes, the United States is known for being “a free country” that stands up against unfair accusations against innocent people, but striking in Syria would be like starting a World War 111 because when the U.S. comes in, multiple other countries will, too.

In an article by Harrison Township Republican Candice Miller, she stated, “While we are still the most powerful nation in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, [power] comes at a great cost of American blood and treasure while not providing a commensurate benefit to our national security.”

President Obama is put in an uncomfortable position because Syria has violated an “international norm” by using chemical weapons and the right thing to do would be to step in, but as a nation we should have learned something valuable about the last 12 years when we were involved in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States should protect only the American people, American allies, and American vital national interests.

The biggest problem is that party that used the chemical weapons is still a mystery. The United States doesn’t know if it was the Syrian government or its citizens rebelling against them. Why would we take the risk of threatening our military if its not even the government that has been using the weapons?

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has agreed to the option given by Russia to give up chemical weapons but the entire situation as a whole is sketchy. We don’t know who has the chemical weapons, so how do we know for a fact that they will give them up? We also are not in a position to put trust in Russia. How do we know that Russia won’t turn against us and use the chemical weapons?

The North Star staff feels that a strike on Syria or involving the U.S. in the situation at all would not be prudent.