Download Current Events - Brandywine Heights Area School District

CURRENT EVENTS
AP US Government
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SYRIA?
 Title: “What's the evidence of Syrian chemical weapons
attack?”
 Source: CNN
 URL: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/04/world/syria-usevidence-chemical-weapons-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
 Date: 9/4/2013
TWO OTHER SOURCES
 1) “U.S. dismisses U.N. inspections in Syria of alleged chemical
weapons sites”, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-dismisses-uninspections-in-syria-of-alleged-chemical-weapons-sites/2013/09/04/2b1cf3c4-14e311e3-880b-7503237cc69d_story.html, 9/4/2013
 2) “France, NATO say they have proof Assad was behind
chemical weapons attack as Syria appeals to UN”, ABC News,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/france-says-it-has-proof-of-syriaschemical-weapons-use/4930416 , 9/3/2013
SUMMARY
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been making the case that
the U.S. has “concrete” evidence that the regime of Syrian President
Assad used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians in an attack on
August 21, 2013. The evidence, he says, includes satellite imagery of
the attack itself, proving that the attacks initiated in governmentheld territory. It also includes intercepted communication where a
senior Syrian official confirms the government’s use of chemical
weapons. While American allies Britain, France, and Germany offer
their agreement in the strength of the evidence against Assad, other
nations - especially Syrian ally Russia - continue to press the United
States to release more of its intelligence and to wait until the release
of the report of UN inspectors who left Syria earlier this week. Syria
continues to deny the attack.
HIII: HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THIS CLASS
We have been following the ongoing events in Syria from the
first day of class. These events raise many important questions:
What is the role of the United Nations in policing violations of
international law, such as the treaties banning the use of chemical
weapons? When should powerful nations like the United States
interfere in the internal affairs of other nations? The Middle East is a
tangled network of nations, and conflict in any one could easily spill
over into another. How will international involvement in the Syrian
Civil War worsen conflict in the region, and will American military
action in Syria lead to terrorist reprisals against U.S. targets?
AP GOV:
GOV’T AND CONSTITUTIONAL TIE-IN
 This story involves the Executive and Legislative Branches of the
Federal government.
 The Constitution of the United States shares the authority for
defense/military decision-making between the U.S. Congress which is given the power to declare war by Article I of the
Constitution - and the President, who is identified as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces by Article II. The
Constitution additionally gives the U.S. Senate the authority to
ratify treaties – such as ones signed by the U.S. banning the use of
chemical weapons.
REACTION (AP GOV)
Congress has long abdicated it’s Constitutional mandate to oversee the President’s
conduct of war. The United States hasn’t formally declared war since WWII, despite having
obviously waged war several times since then. Some may argue that the President’s
decision to seek Congressional approval for the use of force in Syria weakens the office of
the President, giving Congress back the power it has given to the Executive. However,
recent American misadventures in the Middle East, combined with the potential for
military action in Syria to spread to other countries, make the decision to share the
responsibility for this decision with the legislature a wise choice. In order to gain the
public support that is needed to convince individual legislators to support the President’s
policy, more intelligence will need to be shared with the American people. This may not
be possible without jeopardizing American intelligence assets in the area, but this may be
the cost of past American military action in the region. Disagreement with U.S. military
policy in the Muslim world has been the key to most recent national elections in the U.S.,
and so building agreement between Congress and the President, between Democrats and
Republicans, is extremely important right now.
REACTION (HIII)
The Middle East is a fragile network of complicated alliances and deeply-held enmities that
has the potential to erupt into warfare at any time. Around the world, major powers are currently
debating entering into armed conflict in Syria as a result of the use of chemical weapons. Nations
are justifiably frightened of tossing a lit match into this powder keg, but can the use of such a
devastating weapon be ignored? Is any nation really safe knowing that there is a regime on earth
willing and able to use such a weapon. While many draw a comparison between America’s intended
course of action in Syria and its invasion of Iraq following allegations of WMD stockpiles held by the
regime of Saddam Hussein, it is important that in the Syrian case we are discussing those weapon’s
actual use, and not just rumors of weapons in storage. Because of the danger of escalation of the
conflict, as well as the spread to neighboring nations, any outside power contemplating military
action against Syria would be wise to continue swift, limited strikes that do not involve ground
forces, and which extract a strategic penalty against those who used chemical weapons without
completely destabilizing the region.