It is morally indefensible for any government to use WMD's against its
citizens, no matter the circumstances presented. This is a violation of
their mandate to protect and defend their people. However, using Martin
Luther King's speech "...fighting violence with violence only multiplies
violence." As the dust has not yet settled from the Arab spring and
regimes continue to face a raft of dilemma's on government formulation
and meeting people's expectations, the prospect for regime change within
Syria is significant in that a power vacuum may result in increased
turmoil and a clamor for grasping power from various factions. The
rebels remain largely without a defined or visible leadership structure,
with various groups remaining independent and dis-conjoined. The
question is what next after the Assad regime topples?
As the Syrian war continues to draw into the war rhetoric, there are
many dynamics that are taking shape. Two heavy past experiences shape
the outcome of the US response towards the Syrian crisis. The first is appeasement, based on the 1930's policy adopted by European countries to Germany, subsequently leading to a greater loss of life and an extension of the war. However, within the context of Syria, there is a greater threat that a lack of action in Syria will present various reactions from other world powers or aggressors. A violation by the US to adhere to its principles and stipulated policy goals would resound in other players questioning the extent as to which the US will adhere to other known pol,icy initiatives/promises in the rparts of the world. A good example of this would be in the case of China in regards to Taiwan, whereby the US claims it shall defend Taiwan in the event of an invasion, or North Korea and Iran in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Another angle for analysis is based on the Iraqi invasion in 2003 and the misgivings of the intelligence community when presenting evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. There is a greater demand for hard evidence to be disclosed by all players before any significant military action can be taken in Syria. Mere rhetoric shall not win the support of European and American citizens to engage in another war.
Forming a strong Syrian National Coalition will be on the top priority list for most Western leaders, since identifying another stronger power base will grant greater impetus towards the regime change option, creating greater availability of options in the liekjely event that Assad's administration will be ran out of power. Nonetheless, many rebel groups in Syria today are brutal and largely possess strong Islamic fundamentalist ideals in nature, with some linked to Al-Qaeda. Wiping away the regime would render more problems in the future for rebuilding Syria.
Overwhelming proof is beginning to show that the Assad regime is responsible for any chemical weapons attack. Military capabilities to launch a large scale chemical weapons attack requires very large military artillery capabilities, something the rebels are incapable of possessing.It would also prove counter productive for the rebels to engage in such fights.
The Arab League's reaction to the ongoing crisis may add a greater face value to the ongoing war, and result in some regional response to the crisis, especially from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. The best way of solving the Syrian crisis would be to involve all these partners in formulating a grand strategy, ensuring that negotiating a stronger reaction towards the turmoil shall result in eventual peace. A coordinated regional solution, especially in forcing Assad to cooperate more effectively in the Geneva negotiations, would hopefully begin to quell the violence.
