Explosions lit up the sky on the night of April 13 as the United States, along with allies France and Great Britain, carried out precision missile strikes on targets in Syria that were believed to be associated with the production of chemical weapons. The strikes were in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack reportedly carried out by Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad’s regime.

Chemical and biological weapons were banned by the Geneva Convention, signed in 1929 by all major world powers. Syria, on the other hand signed the treaty in 1959 but never ratified the treaty. Despite this, signing the treaty is seen as a powerful commitment. Russia and Iran, the two major supporters of the Assad government, both ratified the Geneva Convention.

Russia maintains that the recent chemical attack was staged by foreign forces and state that they have evidence that Britain was directly involved, which Britain denied. Despite Russia’s claims, the Violations Documentation Center (VDC), a Syrian opposition group that records alleged violations of law in Syria, reported that the victims had the hallmarks of a chemical attack. Chemical weapons experts have not yet arrived to definitively determine whether a chemical attack occurred or not.

Despite the attack, the method of intervention used is largely ineffective and creates more questions than it answered. To begin with, the Syrian government harms its citizens with more weapons than just chemical ones. They have repeatedly barrel bombed areas with large civilian concentrations with little direct response from major world powers. This puts forth the notion that the United States and other major world powers will tolerate the killing of civilians with no major action as long as there’s no chemical weapons involved.

In addition to this, airstrikes are largely ineffective. Last year the United States spent over 200 million dollars to bomb an airfield in Syria that subsequently repaired and in service a day after. In fact, the last bombing campaign that resulted in a positive outcome was 1994-95 during the Bosnian war. Airstrikes are still used because they provide a less direct and inflammatory response to a problem than other methods, such as a invasion would. It also keeps American citizens out of the line of fire. Besides this, they accomplish little other than giving the impression of response to a foreign action

This goes to show that America cannot solve every issue by bombing it. Obviously, American interests abroad should still be protected and attacks on civilians should not be tolerated, but the money and thought would be better spent to find a more effective solution.