The best argument that one can put forward in favour of US-led strikes in Syria will be bringing in the principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P). However, so far, it seems that neither the United Nations Charter nor the principle mentioned before is of any use to protect the Syrian people from the scourge of the war Syrian masses are witnessing since 2011.

A preliminary analysis of the latest US-led strikes on sites of chemical weapons in Syria shows that the demonstration of power will not generate the desired results, i.e., stopping Syrian regime from using chemical weapons in the on-going civil war. What purpose do these strikes fulfil at all? At best, one can call these air attacks as a face-saving move by the West. Before the latest US, UK and French air attack, military action in April 2017 was conducted when usage of chemical weapons was reported in the town of Khan Sheikhoun. Back then too, the US bombed regime-operated Shayrat airfield.

Nevertheless, the situation on the ground tells that the US-led strikes did not achieve anything for the civilians. In fact, American attacks received a negative response from the Syrian people. Above all, Bashar-al-Assad and his regime gained from the strikes as a few hours after the strikes he was seen triumphantly reaching his workplace while locals were celebrating in the streets.

In a war that has consumed more than half a million lives, the masses wonder why chemical attacks constitute a “red line” to the West, that have taken only a fraction of the total killings, but not the barrel bombs and live artillery that has brought havoc in their lives. The scepticism among the people of Syria is growing day by day as far as Western response to the violations by the regime is concerned. They see the West as a mere spectator in the killing fields of Syria. The inability of the West to make peace in Syria means that its endgame in Syria is a perpetual civil war.