Places, everyone!

The stage has been set for yet another U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

On Aug. 21, a chemical weapon attack resulted in the death and injury of hundreds of people in the Duma neighborhood of Damascus, Syria. U.S. government officials immediately accused the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime for the attack despite the lack of any real evidence. A week later, President Barack Obama is already planning and cementing U.S. military action in Syria.

U.S. military intervention in Syria is groundless in evidence, largely unsupported by the American public and will have catastrophic effects.

On March 19, sarin nerve gas was used in an attack that killed at least 26 civilians and Syrian army soldiers outside of Aleppo, Syria, according to an article by RT.

The U.S. promptly blamed the Syrian government for the attacks even though they found no evidence to support their claim. Obama began talking about the event as a red line that had been crossed and called for military action against Assad’s regime.

Sound familiar?

The U.N. insisted on investigating the chemical attack themselves. On May 6, U.N. investigator Carla Del Ponte went public stating that evidence from the investigation indicated that it was the Syrian rebels who had employed sarin gas. Del Ponte went on to conclude that there was no indication the Syrian government had launched any chemical attacks whatsoever, according to an article by BBC.

Both the U.N. and Russia have evidence that proves the Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical attack in March. Yet the United States is supporting that same group of rebels now and is acting as their accomplice, while accusing Assad’s regime for the last chemical attack without any evidence.

In order to gain public support, the media continues to paint the Syrian rebels as local freedom fighters. This depiction could not be more wrong. In addition to the chemical attack the rebels carried out in March, three Syrian rebels beat and executed a young boy in June.

The only reasonable conclusions we can draw from these facts are that the United States is not acting in the interest of human rights and is ignoring facts about the rebels in order to help the extremists topple the Syrian government. President Obama and Sen. John McCain have already discussed plans to send more advanced weapons to Syrian rebels, according to an article by The Daily Beast.

It is interesting how in the states, the government requires FBI background checks in order to buy a deer rifle. However, if you are a foreign jihadist trying to overthrow a government that Washington is not on good terms with, they will send you rocket launchers and artillery – no questions asked.

How can President Obama explain fighting religious extremists in Afghanistan and calling them terrorists, while supporting those same groups in Syria and calling them freedom fighters?

The Syrian government had no reason to use chemical weapons. Not only was the Syrian government making strong gains these past few months, but they also knew the United States was looking for any excuse to intervene. If Washington has any real evidence to support the claim that Assad’s regime is responsible, there is no reason why they should not produce it.

Statements of opinions do not warrant bombing a nation and entering a war that will likely spin out of control. Both Russia and China have openly sided with Syria and Iran. Russia even warned that a nuclear war could result if the United States continues down this path, according to an article by BBC.

The American people do not want this war. An estimated “60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act,” according to an article by Reuters.

Despite everything, the United States is no longer pursuing a U.N. or NATO stamp of approval to respond with force. Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to authorize President Obama to use limited force against Syria after adopting McCain’s amendments.

U.S. military intervention in Syria would be a huge risk. This is one of the most dangerous crossroads we have ever come upon in history. Countries are picking sides and threatening serious repercussions if the United States intervenes. This could easily be the beginning of World War Three.

Considering the lack of evidence and the inconceivable consequences, many of us are left wondering why the United States is still planning military action in Syria at all. It probably has nothing to do with the fact that Syria is a net exporter of oil or that billions of dollars are made from war.

But put those crazy conspiracy theories out of your mind; America is here to spread democracy, freedom and protect human rights – all by means of our .50 caliber machine guns, drone strikes and weapons of mass destruction.

-Ashley Lynn Fisher is a junior English major from Gig Harbor. She can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this Column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of Student Publications.