October 13, 2013 · 4:00 PM
This location is shown only to members
The recent use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict triggered the Obama Administration to threaten U.S. military action against Syria. However, a military strike was uncertain after it became clear that the Administration did not have congressional or public support for combat operations. Ultimately, the U.S. did not attack, after Russia brokered a deal in which Syria agreed to let U.N. inspectors destroy their chemical weapons programs.
Some have argued that the U.S. should have attacked Syria to send the message to Syria and to the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Others claim that the U.N. deal is optimal because it prevents Syria's further use of chemical weapons and it avoids bringing war weary America into another military conflict.
Was the U.N. deal a success or failure for U.S. foreign policy? Join us as we discuss how the U.S. should handle the Syrian conflict. References are below.
All views and political orientations are welcome.
We welcome beginners and policy wonks alike. Feel free to join the discussion or just to listen and learn.
If you sign up and change your mind, please change your reply so that someone else may attend.
Meetup to last 1.5 hours (until 5:30 PM) although, of course, people are welcome to continue beyond that point.
Interview with Secretary of State John Kerry about how the U.N. deal was reached.
2013 Syrian Civil War Panel (48 min audio)
Five eminent civil war experts will help you understand what is happening in Syria today. Why did war break out in Syria but not in Egypt? And why did the U.S. choose not to intervene? How is this war likely to end and what should the U.S. do in the meantime? These are just some of the questions that will be addressed.
Can it be done? Destroying a chemical arsenal in the midst of a civil war is unprecedented.