With thousands dead and millions displaced, Syria's war is already a massive tragedy. I'm surely ignorant to the complexities of the conflict, but I wish it could have been avoided and I hope it won't spread into a wider conflict with international victims.
Instead of military intervention by NATO, which could draw in military opposition from Iran, Russia, and China, America could consider scaling back its support of rebels and work with Russia & China to find a diplomatic solution for Assad's removal. More public dialogue is necessary on non-violent solutions. Obviously one suggestion isn't a solution.
Who was the perpetrator of a probable chemical weapon attack this August? This is a debated question, with no obvious answer as of yet. Many suggest it was the Syrian government, while some suggest it was opposition forces, with different reasoning on both sides. Does anyone really know though? Has a possible third party been ruled out?
This isn't just a Syrian issue as nations worldwide increasingly vocalize vastly differing visions on the conflict.
If the question of who perpetrated the crime can be determined, does that mean the U.S. should intervene? One argument for intervention would be to avoid the distribution of chemical weapons to either victorious rebels, or other unknown groups. Another argument could include establishing a launching pad for an attack on Iran. Or perhaps natural gas interests are at play. Whatever the arguments, why should we trust the U.S. on this issue, either in its statements or in its actions? The U.S. is an unpredictable monster. Neither is the U.S. a good example of morals. Take for instance its past policies on climate change, it being one of the greatest laggards in the world.
I'm in favour of a deescalation of violence where possible. War is a major cause of the climate crisis, and we can rightfully question the morality of the U.S.'s military intentions based on the past.