President Barack Obama has ‘officially’ decided to provide weapons to Syrian rebels. After months and months of sending non-lethal assistance to the Bashar-al Assad opposition forces, the United States on Thursday announced it has conclusive evidence that chemical weapons are being used by the Syrian regime.
The first chemical warfare claims this year appeared in the news in March when reports emerged confirming a banned chemical agent was used in a deadly attack in Aleppo between the rebels and regime forces. Both sides of the conflict blamed each other for the incident which left almost 25 dead and several others severely injured.
Following the rumors in March, several more claims were made that chemical weapons were being used in Syria and that it would have grave consequences. One wonders what could be graver than a death toll 90,000.
Also, the decision to arm Syrian rebels reminds me of an English Grammar error known as redundant adjectives. We cannot use the adjective ‘armed’ for the noun ‘gunmen’. The U.S. is somewhat doing the same. By arming already armed people, how is the Obama administration playing a positive role in the Syrian civil unrest? The international media is rife with news reports citing massacres and hostility committed by the rebels. Most recently, a video from Syria recorded by Syrian rebels emerged on the internet, showing a person, apparently their leader, mutilating an enemy corpse and eating the heart of a Syrian army soldier.
This and more is apparently wrong with the decision of supplying weapons to an already conflict-stricken zone and to a group which has executed signs of being potential political troublemakers. Who is to guarantee that the weapons will be used against the government forces only? This will only lead to even more chaos.