Professors comment on potential Syrian strike

As local protestors prepared to take to the streets in opposition of a U.S. surgical strike in Syria, Brian Shah-Delong sat in his office mulling over the conflict.

Shah-Delong is an instructor at the School of Public and Environmental affairs and coach of the IU debate team, which is debating topics such as America’s involvement in Syria this semester.

He said he’d given the topic much thought, and in his opinion, there is not enough information to take a side in this political controversy.

“Like many members of Congress, I’m largely on the fence,” Shah-Delong said. “I think its difficult as a citizen to make a decision, since much of the information, including targeting information, is not given to us.”

Since Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on his own citizens, President Obama has been pushing for a surgical strike. More specific than going to war, a surgical strike deals with a certain target. Congress discussed whether to take the action yesterday.

Professor Feisal Istrabadi, director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East, said he is more suspicious. He said he thinks a surgical strike could lead to war.

“There are potential ramifications and responses that could draw the United States into a larger role than the Obama administration seems to have anticipated,” Istrabadi said.
With this plausibility, Istrabadi said he doesn’t feel that its best for the U.S. military to get involved.

“I don’t think there is any stomach for a protracted intervention in Syria on the American public,” Istrabadi said. “It doesn’t appear to me that the diplomatic channels have been exhausted yet.”

Shah-Delong said he understands why people are hesitant to strike.

“There’s no guarantee that a U.S. surgical strike could erode Assad’s inclination to use the chemical weapons to the point that it couldn’t be used in the future,” he said.
However, he said also realizes the humanitarian quality of the situation in respect to why the administration wants to take action against the weapons.

“The chemical gas is fairly devastating in that it could essentially destroy neurological systems or eat your body from the inside out,” Shah-Delong said. “It’s largely a weapon of fear.”

Although plans are unclear about how the chemical weapons would be compromised, Istrabadi said he was cautious.

“There are some who argue that if you actually bomb the weapons, you in fact risk releasing the toxins in the air,” Istrabadi said.

Istrabadi said he feels the administration is trying to play a very specific role that is hard to pull off.

“If you take what the administration says at face value, they tell you its not about causing the regime to collapse, it’s about causing the regime to not use the weapons again,” Istrabadi said. “I don’t know how you thread that needle.”