Who we are

Chigrid.org is a friendly team of professional academic and business writers, editors and researchers working day and night to create free, easy-to-use and interesting essay writing guides, research paper manuals and samples.

Great academic resources

Help us grow

Want to help students around the world enhance their writing skills? Are you a dedicated academic professional or expert freelance writer? Join our editorial team and share your knowledge.

Should the US Intervene in Syria if the Threat of Chemical Weapons Still Exists?

Riots in Syria do not stop since March 2011. The number of victims among the innocent civilians is always increasing. The US and Great Britain decided to intervene in the country because of the reports of a possible chemical attack against the rebels from the government of Bashar al-Assad. However, it is unclear whether they should intervene in Syria, and what consequences would this intervention entail. There exist different opinions.

On the one hand, if Bashar al-Assad will apply the chemical weapons, it would mean the so-called “red line” crossing. It will involve the military intervention of the US. It, in turn, may lead to the terrorism propagation and deaths of innocent people. It may stimulate the beginning of the international war. In addition, such intervention is not profitable for the US budget – it requires big financial expenditures, and the US has nothing to gain from it.

On the other hand, Syria stated that it would use all available measures to defend itself in case of the US attack. It may mean acts of terror in the United States of America. The war with Syria may also cause a significant damage to American relations with Russia and China as well. Moreover, if China will dump a big amount of the US debt held by the country, interest rates will begin to rise sharply, and the US will be on the verge of bankruptcy.

If the US government starts a war with Syria without the approbation of the American citizens, the Congress of the US and the United Nations Organization, the country may lose allies and trust of the whole world. In turn, many Syrians express their alarm about the impact of foreign intervention on them and their families.

Some political critics demand of President Obama to show his leadership by doing something for Syria. Other critics suppose that the Syrians should solve their problems without any international interference. It is hard to identify whose suggestion is right and whose not. Maybe, sometimes it is better to stay aside and not to intervene in other countries’ business, especially, when the innocent people may suffer from such intervention. However, if the political intervention will help to save thousands of human lives, it is important to take up a leading position and to prevent the losses.

There is no concrete solution to the problem given, but the following conclusion may be drawn. This situation needs to consider all the advantages and disadvantages. In case, when the benefits for the US and innocent citizens prevail, the intervention is only possible. In other case, it is necessary to think what should be the next steps.