The United Nations (UN) estimates that between 92,000 and 100,000 people have died in the Syrian Civil War. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) estimates that 5,030 of those are children and another 3,179 are women. Each day these counts are increasing as more and more nations wish to see the fighting stopped and peace talks began.
This is apparent with the announcement of the U.S.'s plans to supply the Syrian rebels with small arms and anti-tank rockets, as reported by the Star Tribune. This was preceded by nearly a year of intense discussion on whether or not the risks of the weapons given to the rebels being turned on the U.S. after the war is ended outweigh the need for peace. The tipping point came when evidence that Bashar Assad, the Syrian president, used chemical weapons on his own people. The White House states that the decision to send weapons had been made weeks ago. However Russia, a close ally of president Assad and his regime, claims the evidence is still lacking.
A little Context
The Syrian Uprising began in 2011, growing out of the Arab Spring, mostly as peaceful protests against Assad's policies of oppression. The Regime's violent reaction to the protests sparked violence across the country and began the Civil War. Assad and his forces are fighting an array of rebel groups without a central command.While Syria is a diverse country religious tensions have only added to the conflict which in turn has increased those same tensions in neighboring countries. Assad and his commanders are Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, which is a minority in Syria. The rebels are constituted mostly of Sunni's which comprise the majority of Syrians.
Syria is also a historic ally of Russia and China both of which has close ties to Assad's regime. This has put nations such as the U.S. and Russia on opposing sides when it comes to discussing what is to be done to end the conflict.
The Perils of Intervention
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns against intervention because the effects of Washington's "desire to micromanage the globe" cannot be predicted and could lead further interventions in the future. As an example Bandow cites the U.S.'s meddling in Iran mid-twentieth century.
"In 1953 Washington fomented a coup against leftist Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossedegh. His replacement, the Shah, was a reliable American ally, but an equally reliable thug. By brutally suppressing more moderate political elements and forcibly modernizing a traditional society he helped trigger the Islamic revolution, which in 1979 brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power.
Fear of Iranian subversion and aggression in the Gulf led the Reagan administration to back Saddam Hussein after he attacked Iran. Then, believing that he had U.S. support or at least acquiescence, he attempted to swallow neighboring Kuwait. But Washington then intervened against him. However, the U.S. left him in power since it feared creating a power vacuum to be filled by Iran. At the same time, Washington kept troops in Saudi Arabia, which created one of the grievances that impelled Osama bin Laden to strike America on 9/11.
Subsequently the Bush administration invaded Iraq to “drain the swamp,” creating the previously feared vacuum which strengthened Tehran’s geopolitical position. If Washington ultimately ends up attacking Iran, the impact could be as extraordinary as it would be unpredictable. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of the 1953 coup aren’t over yet."
