Should the U.S. intervene with whats going on in Syria?

A History
2000, Bashar al-Assad elected as Syrian president,
unopposed
Damascus Spring, period of debate on political reform,
suppressed by government in 2001
2003, Israel bombed sites near Damascus, claiming they
were terrorist training facilities.
2005, Syria ends occupation in Lebanon
2007, Operation Orchard occurs against supposed nuclear
reactor.
2011, Syrian civil war
July 2011, formation of Free Syrian Army
Over 100,000 people have been killed, many fleeing to
Syrias neighbours, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon.
2013, Obama announces 50-man insurgent element inserted
into Syria.
Politics
Assads foreign policy: ensure national security, increase
influence among Arab neighbours. and return of Golan Heights.
Due to associated human rights, Syrias relations in the
international community has been severed. Violence has also gotten Syria
suspended from the Arab League.
August 2013, Syria suspected of using chemical weapons
against its civilians. Assad asserts attacks were carried out by insurgents.
Maintains diplomatic relation with Russia; Russia was one
country to veto UN decision to condemn Bashar al-Assad government.
Economy
Classified by World Bank as lower middle income country.
Depends on oil (40% of export earnings), and agriculture
(20% of GDP, 20% of employment)
Since civil war, economy shrank by 35%
2005, UNDP announces 30% of Syrians live in poverty,

11.4% live below subsistence level.

Unemployment at 10%
Poverty rates increased 12.3% in 2007
Due to civil war, GDP declines 3% in 2011
US and European ban on oil imports cost Syria
approximately $400 million a month.
Revenue from tourism drops drastically, from 90% to less
than 15% in May 2012.

Affirmative
1. It is moral.
a. Human rights are being oppressed in Syria. If
the U.S. does not do anything, Syrian government will continue its
actions. The death toll in Syria is comparable to that in Libya before
intervention.
b. Syria has chemical weapons. Initiating no
action might give other countries in the Middle East the wrong idea
that they will not be punished for utilizing chemical or biological
weapons.
2. It is strategic
a. Syria has a close relationship with Iran, known
for hosting terrorist groups as Hezbelloa and Hamas. By not
intervening in the civil war in Syria, the U.S. is letting all these

terrorist groups off the hook.

3. It is in the best interest of the U.S.
a. The Constitution calls for government with free
rights, directly opposite of what Syria is.
b. The U.S. is already assisting the Syrian rebels,
so they might as well carry on to the end. It is only more counterproductive if the U.S. only arms the rebels, but gives no other form
of help, because that will cause more people to die in the war.
4. It enforces the Geneva Protocol
a. Signed on June 17, 1925, prohibited countries
from using chemical or biological weapons in conflict.
b. Syrias use of these weapons is a direct
violation of the Protocol, and thus they should be condemned.
c. By intervening, U.S. also sends the message
to other countries and allies of Syria not to use chemical weapons
in the future.

Affirmative Opposition
1. Intervention will cause Syrian reliance on the U.S.
a. True, helping the rebels in Syria would effectively speed up
the conclusion of the civil war, but in the long run, this is bad. Syrian rebels
already rely on the U.S. for assistance of arms and weapons, and once
the rebels come to power, they may be even more reliant.
b. If the U.S. intervenes in Syria, then it will be drawn into a
conflict with multiple Middle Eastern countries, including Syrias allies.
More conflict is not what the U.S. needs, when diplomacy can also solve
the problem.
2. It will harm U.S. leadership
a. 2012 Global Leadership report shows that only 29% Syrians
approve of U.S. leadership, compared to a 40% disapproval.
b. Intervention will only decrease the U.S.s popularity in the
Middle East.
3. It is not the business of the U.S.
a. The Constitution instructs politicians on how to lead the U.S.,
not other countries.
b. The civil war going on in Syria has nothing to do with the
U.S., and thus Syrians have the responsibility to sort out the conflict
themselves.
4. It should not be the responsibility of the U.S. alone to act.
a. U.S. shouldnt be the only intervening country; multiple
countries have the duty
b. By order of importance, countries should first convene and
discuss the matter. The U.S. is acting foolishly by not enlisting the help of
other countries.
Negative

1. The U.S. has no right to intervene

a. It is not in the U.S.s interest to intervene in the politics of
another country.
b. As a global leader, the U.S.s responsibility is the reduce
harm from war as much as it can. However, if it intervenes in Syria by
arming the rebel armies and opposing the Syrian government, it will lose
respect from other countries as a global leader.
2. Intervention will worsen the situation.
a. By attacking Syria, only more lives will be lost, and the civil
war will grow more chaotic.
b. If we want to end the civil war, diplomacy will work maybe
even better than straight-out attacks on Syria.
3. Intervention will be costly.
a. Intervention in Syria will also mean assisting rebel armies,
which the U.S. is already doing. However, assisting them even further will
cost the U.S. a great deal.
b. The U.S. has no significant trade relations with Syria
currently, and so assisting the rebels will not mean much, even if they win
the war. There are no economic benefits to the U.S.

Negative Opposition
1. U.S. has a duty to intervene
a. As a leading power in the world, it is the duty of the U.S. to
ensure the rights of people everywhere. If human rights are being taken in
Syria, then the U.S. is obliged to intervene there.
b. What goes on in Syria is the Syrian governments own
business, but the U.S. at least should attempt to assist the the rebels and
government in negotiation.
2. If the U.S. does not intervene, the situation will be even worse.
a. Lives are already being lost as the civil war goes on in Syria.
If no country takes action fast, then even more lives will be gone. By
intervening, the U.S. can establish order quickly, and thus reduce the
amount of lives lost
b. Diplomacy denotes a sense of weakness on the part of the
U.S. The U.S. should intervene because it can demonstrate its authority
over Syria, which is known to host certain terrorist groups as well.
3. Intervention is worth the costs.
a. Although it will be costly to intervene, it is something the U.S.
must do. They are already providing the rebel armies with arms, and so if
they dont intervene, the assistance will have been futile.
b. Intervention will expedite the ending of the civil war, and in
turn, this will improve U.S.-Syria relations. Even if this doesnt benefit the
U.S. economically, it definitely will in some other way, politically or
otherwise.