Syria: Russia does it right

On Aug. 31, 10 days after Bashar al-Assad used sarin gas against his own people and killed more than 1,000, President Obama delivered a speech stating the necessity of military intervention in Syria. The issue divided the Democratic and Republican parties.

When Russia proposed a plan that could put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, Assad showed approval for the diplomatic proposal.

Though Congress remains unsure of what action to take, choosing the diplomatic option provides a chance to easily seize the weapons from Syria's government. Obama called the plan a “positive development,” but he remains undecided on what action to take.

Military action against Syria’s government would make disarming the weapons more complicated and far more expensive. The Atlantic said destroying the chemical weapons would cost about $1 billion, and it would be far safer than an air strike. An air campaign could escalate to a war that would require billions of dollars, making the disarmament option a far more efficient alternative.

It could also provoke Assad to threaten the U.S. with further use of chemical weapons on more civilians, or in other words hold his own people as hostage — as Saddam Hussein did during the Iraq War.

Even calling for air strikes on Syria would not lessen the danger for the U.S. A military action might open the possibility of Al-Qaeda taking over. That's what we really want to avoid.

Simply giving Al-Qaeda the chance to take over Syria could endanger the U.S.’s national security, and the only option then would be to put boots on the ground. The result might result in a situation similar to the Iraq War. Post-war stability may not even be guaranteed because the moderate and Al-Qaeda factions could clash after the Syrian government is out of the way.

If Al-Qaeda affiliates were to take control of the government, Assad’s chemical weapons could fall into their hands and create a more dangerous enemy than the present Syrian government. Assad would not risk firing chemical weapons at the U.S. or Israel, but Al Qaeda, which has already declared holy war against the U.S., would not be as hesitant.

While a conventional explosive yields the potential to take hundreds of lives with one blast, a silent chemical weapon attack would kill many before security even discovers that an attack happened. The agent could spread throughout the air and leave a deadly after-effect.

Additionally, it is evident that Al-Qaeda would not be concerned with human rights or freedom but instead brainwash more people to support their cause. The present Syrian government has strict laws, but Al Qaeda would create radical laws based on their interpretation of the Qu’ran.

As of now, ex-defense chiefs say that Obama has the permission to attack Syria without the permission of Congress, according to the New American. Countries such as France and Britain have sided with Russia on a peaceful agreement, with some in the U.S. still skeptical of the deal.

Obama must go forward with Russia’s offer to avoid making an enemy in the Middle East and to keep the U.S. from having to intervene militarily. After all, we don’t want to contaminate the world with another war.