The Right Moral Choice for the US in Response to Chemical Weapons attack in Syria

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Chemical weapons attack in Syria and the US response
Moral issues concerning the US response plan
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Some of the questions that have dominated the popular media and debates worldwide concern the situation in Syria and the question of the United States’ involvement in the ongoing events in Syria.

The humanitarian situation in Syria has worsened in the past few months due to increase in the scale of violence resulting from calculated attacks on civilians. This paper presents views on the right moral decision by the United States concerning the use of chemical weapons to attack civilians in Syria.

Chemical weapons attack in Syria and the US response

There have been a lot of claims and arguments concerning the situation in Syria due to continued months of violence in the country. The violence has resulted in a lot of deaths and displacements.

One main thing that has invigorated the debate and triggered the response from the White House is the claim that the Syrian regime, under the leadership of its incumbent President Bashar al-Assad, utilized chemical weapons to attack civilians in opposition zones.

This has made President Obama stage a bill and enhance the campaign to seek support of the Congress to allow US intervention in Syria through the use of minimum violence (Frumin para. 1-2). The aim of the minimum attacks plan is to help liberate Syrians from what the United States terms as a brutal and rogue regime.

However, lots of questions are posed, with most commentators questioning the moral basis on which the US wants to use minimum violence to oust the regime of Bashar al-Assad. What should be questioned is the ability of the US to carry out attacks without causing more harm to innocent civilians in Syria.

This concern comes from the fact that the Syrian forces have attracted a lot of players, like Russia and Iran, who have promised to support the Syrian regime to counter the attacks if the United States stages a military intervention in Syria.

Moral issues concerning the US response plan

The statement that was released by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, denoted the focus of the United States on a plan to free the citizens of Syria from the atrocities being committed by the Syrian government. Kerry said that the nature of killing innocent people that is taking place in Syria depicts a high level of moral obscenity (The New York Times para. 2).

According to the New York Times (para. 3), the United States government views the attack as an incidence that goes beyond the conflict and violence in Syria. Instead, use of chemical weapons is a rogue action since the weapons are barred.

The most critical moral question here concerns the perspective of the United States on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The United States sees this as a provocative act by the Syrian regime, thus the response by the US government. There is the need to take a rational stance and eliminate the politics of dominance from the matter, regardless of how much this may be considered to be a provocative act.

Use of chemical weapons by any country needs to be condemned using the strongest terms possible. However, there is not much to think regarding what is best for the people if any set of interventions are likely to bring more harm than good to innocent citizens. In this regard, such interventions would be largely considered to be immoral (Moneme para. 1-3).

Most of the military interventions that have been staged by the United States have resulted in further political destabilization and violence that cause more harm to innocent citizens. Examples that can be given here include Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq (Fitzpatrick para 7).

Conclusion

Most commentators have opposed the proposed military intervention in Syria. Most of the arguments come from liberals, who cite the use of military intervention as a potential cause of more violence due to counteractive forces. These can cause more harm than the supposed chemical attack by the Syrian government.

Works Cited

Fitzpatrick, Matthew. “Five Reasons Military Intervention in Syria is Wrong.” The Drum. 2013. Web.

Frumin, Aliyah. “Liberals See no Good Choices in Syria Crisis.” NBC News. 2013. Web.

Moneme, Nnamdi. “Fighting the Right Demons.” Catholic Exchange. 2013. Web.

The New York Times. “Text of Kerry’s Statement on Chemical Weapons in Syria.” The New York Times. 2013. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Right Moral Choice for the US in Response to Chemical Weapons attack in Syria

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)