The Syrian Conflict

The Syrian conflict has shot to the top of governments agendas due to the recent use of chemical weapons against its own people. This murder must be stopped but what is the best possible solution?

Bashar al-Assad is the President of Syria and has served since 2000 after succeeding his father Hafez al-Assad. His initial stance as a reformer for the country was shattered when he ordered a mass crackdown and military sieges on pro-rebel forces amid the recent protests against his leadership. Syria was officially declared in a state of civil war on July 15th 2012, following the reports of the death toll reaching 20,000 for all sides. The conflict has now reached a point of intervention as evidence showing the use of chemical weapons by the government against it's own people has surfaced. Horrific images were released of hundreds of people that had been murdered with the use of Sarin gas, a nerve agent and weapon of mass destruction that causes paralysis and suffocation when inhaled are absorbed through the skin. This attack was questioned by governments about whether rebels had killed the Syrian people to try and force intervention from other countries or whether the Assad Regime was responsible for this atrocity. 

Sadly, it took this monstrous attack to bring the Syrian conflict into the public domain and start talks on a global scale. A 'Red Line' has been drawn and the use of chemical weapons has crossed this hypothetical line. I understand that in the chemical weapons convention of 1993, chemical weapons were determined as illegal and the use, production and stockpiling of such weapons was to cease. However, I see the slaughter of the Syrian people, regardless of the method used to do so, as crossing a'Red Line', and talks should have begun the moment the Syrian army, militia and government agents started to murder there own people. 

So as I'm sure you're aware, government talks have been commencing across the globe, to determine means of intervention within Syria. So what has been put on the table in means of a solution? Bombing Syria to try and pressure the Assad regime to cease conflict? Invasion of Syria forcibly removing the Assad government? Peace talks to try and sanction a cease fire to reduce casualties? Of course the government and media want you to think that these are the only possible means of a solution but there is always other ways to deal with what seem to be unsolvable problems. Recently the UK government has voted against the bombing of Syria much to the disapproval of other governments. Firstly I believe that bombing the government to try and force a resolution is ridiculous, fighting fire with fire would only increase the conflict and lead to more deaths. Secondly the UK's political stance on this crisis has shown the powerful use of democracy within this country which completely over shadows any disapproval.   

An invasion on Syria to remove the Assad government seems an extreme solution and would lead to a new war that does not need to happen, spreading the violence and only pouring fuel on an already raging fire. The Governments hesitation to invade Syria seems to be a result of the embarrassment left from the illegal invasion of Iraq and the death of hundreds of British troops and Iraqi civilians. This also highlights how calculated an invasion is, as countries with resources deemed valuable to the country are quickly invaded where as other countries with no control over oil are left to 'fight it out' themselves. Don't get me wrong, I am completely against any sort of invasion, but it clearly shows the governments thinking when planning intervention. 

I am no expert in this area of politics and government, but it is easy to see on a humanitarian level, something must be done to help the innocent Syrian people, who seem to be used as pawns in a violent and never ending game of chess between rebels and the government. There is no easy answer or solution to this civil war, but now it is high on governments agendas, hopefully a peaceful solution will be found .