The US has stated that they have evidence that chemical weapons were used in an attack that took place on August 21st against citizens in the eastern suburbs of Damascus. It is estimated that more than 1,400 civilians were killed in the attack, including 426 children. Syrian officials however state that American backed groups were the ones who used the chemical weapons and not the Syrians.
American President Barack Obama stated earlier that military action against Syria would take place if chemical weapons were found to be used stating that chemical weapon use crossed a “red line”. Polls indicated the American public did not fully support military action by their country with a majority opposing such. Mr. Obama then sent the issue for a vote by Congress even though he could have brought in military action without such approval. Many other governments around the world have declined any military intervention.
Although the use of chemical weapons that the Syrian government has used against its own citizens is abhorrent, is it necessary for governments of other countries to intervene? The United States seems to want to step in whenever other countries are in conflict and have become the world’s peacekeepers getting involved in most conflicts between other countries. These interventions costs taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars when they occur.
I think that governments should not get involved in every crisis that comes about between other countries. Many of the countries that intervene in such conflicts have problems in their own countries that could use the money that is spent on conflict resolution in other countries. There is also the fact that these countries send their men and women into these foreign conflicts and often many of them do not come back home or come back crippled, unable to resume a normal life.
World leaders need to step back from feeling the need to resolve every conflict that comes along and pay more attention to the issues in their own countries. Here in Canada we have children that must go to school hungry and numerous homeless people because housing is often unaffordable due to low wages and unemployment. The money spent on military intervention in countries that are feuding for whatever reason, could be used to fix problems locally.
With the economy the way it is in many countries, spending countless dollars to resolve conflicts between other countries should not be a priority. Conflicts between countries happens far too often and in all likelihood will continue to do so. We send our men and women into these war zones in what are called peacekeeping missions, which turn out to be anything but peaceful with combat often occurring. These countries start these conflicts amongst themselves often with the expectations that other countries will step in to help them. Perhaps if we left them alone, they would find other ways to resolve their issues rather than gunfire. In some cases, intervention is not going to fix the issues anyway, so why get involved.
Given the results of polls taken, I believe I’m not the only one who feels this way. What do others think on this matter? Leave a comment.