THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY

Should The West Intervene In Syria?

It's the necessary next step

It would prolong the carnage

 Getty: Thomas Lohnes / Stringer

A US-led joint strike in Syria is the best reaction to the recent chemical attack by Assad’s regime, holds David A. Andelman of CNN. France has pushed hard for this option, publicly commenting that a red line has been crossed. President Trump, who is ultimately the biggest decision-maker, would do well to follow through with this plan. If he refrains from stronger military intervention, he risks mirroring the mistake Barrack Obama made in 2013 by not punishing Assad’s transgressions. Allowing the Syrian leader to go on without punishment would make Trump look weak and could open the door to more atrocities against civilians.

Keep on reading at CNN

The half-hearted Western intervention in Syria since 2011 has dragged out the conflict, fueling the civilian death toll and doing little to improve the situation, argues Simon Jenkins of The Guardian. The sooner Assad wins, the sooner the carnage will end. After a US strike on an airbase after a Syrian chemical weapons attack in 2017, little changed. The international condemnation has done nothing to sway Assad or his allies. In fact, Western bombing campaigns led to over 8,000 civilian deaths in Mosul, by one estimate. Chemical weapons may be cruel, but cluster bombs are just as deadly. The West should stop prolonging these horrors by intervening.

Keep on reading at the Guardian
40.0%
Where do you stand?
60.0%
SHOW COMMENTS
Write a response...
See what else you’re missing
single