Whether or not a country should
intervene in another nation’s conflict has always been a big debate. The United
States is currently the biggest power in the world so we typically intervene
when conflicts occur. The ongoing Syrian civil war has raised the question on
how involved the United States should be to end the oppressive regime of Assad.
Personally, I think the United States shouldn’t be more involved than they are now.
A full-scale intervention shouldn’t take place since the US doesn’t know what
they would want to achieve by intervening in Syria and a more diplomatic
approach should be taken to resolve issues.
In
the Foreign Policy article that we read, it said why the US should intervene if
there is no clear goal to achieve. That idea is true. The US shouldn’t
intervene if they don’t know what they want from being involved. If the US
abruptly intervenes, a war could be possible and the conflict could go on for
years. After Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public isn’t keen on sending
troops out or having the US be involved in foreign conflicts that don’t directly
affect the US. We shouldn’t risk the lives of American soldiers if we aren’t
completely sure what we want from intervening.
The
United States has done airstrikes with other nations against ISIS in Syria.
With ISIS, they create an immediate threat to the international world. The air strikes should continue to help fight
against ISIS. With the civil unrest in Syria the issue can be resolved with
diplomatic talks with Assad. If there is pressure from the United States and
other big nations, Assad could reform his oppressive government. A diplomatic
approach seems more reasonable then intervening completely with soldiers and
weapons. A full-scale intervention isn’t needed but aid is offered to
civilians. The aid should continue. The US does allocate funds for nonlethal
aid that helps with food rations and other things.
For now, it is
better that the US doesn’t intervene completely with Syria. If the US were to
intervene the conflict could continue for much longer and cause more danger for
the people of Syria. If the United States and other nations work diplomatically
for government reform in Syria, complete intervention can be avoided. The US
should also work with neighboring countries of Syria like Jordan and Turkey to
help with nation building in Syria. Overall, the US shouldn’t launch a full on
intervention in Syria but continue with airstrikes to fight against ISIS. Also,
the crisis in Syria should be something monitored and fixed by not only the US
but other nations too.
I agree with the analysis that the United States should not become fully involved in the Syrian war, in terms of full out military engagement in the region. The issue is far too complicated, and I think the last thing the region needs is another 100,000 US troops invading. In terms of providing military resources, economic and political pressure however, the United States should be at the forefront. The need for strong united leadership from the international community is vital to give legitimacy to the opposition of the Assad regime as well as the ISIS fighters. In the Syrian debate it is easy to distance ones self from the conflict. The horrific deaths of hundreds of thousands of people should not be ignored. Just imagine being born into a Syrian family and having to grow up and live in this war zone for nearly two years. If we possess the power to mitigate further atrocities, I feel as a leader in the global economic, and political process, the United States has a responsibility to act, and with the support of other leaders in the world help facilitate security. And with Syria being perhaps the most notable example currently in the world, the failure to do faster has been a failure on US global leadership.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S should continue airstrikes, as you stated, but I believe we should also send troops in on the ground for "visibility," if you will. Although I do not believe in complete intervention like you stated above, I do believe as a nation, the U.S can provide such military and political advice that Syria needs. Pulling our troops and tactics out too soon can cause something more catastrophic, such as a war.
ReplyDeleteI do not know what the line should be for intervention but I do believe the U.S. are also threatened by this civil war amongst Syria, thus causing the intensity of however much intervention to be high.
I think it's clear what the Unites States wants from Syria but do not feel like they should push the envelope any further than the air strikes that have already been implemented. The U.S. very well knows what it's doing in terms on involving themselves in the ISIS conflict. It would be unwise to let a radical religious group take over an entire region, especially one who has no reservations about using nuclear and chemical weapons. Establishing a solid democracy is the U.S. main agenda whether it is hidden or not. The United States should use it's military power to it's advantage in achieving their goals. No troops should be sent in until Assad agrees to step down from power. If he refuses the U.S. can decide to withdraw it's airstrikes and let ISIS wipe out the already weak Assad regime.
ReplyDeleteI continue to be frustrated with the assumption that the U.S. should be responsible for all military and humanitarian aid to countries in turmoil. There are many other countries perfectly able with helping struggling people in Syria, such as the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Russia. However, as per usual, the international community looks to the U.S. for help. I understand our commitment to fixing certain humanitarian problems around the world, but I am frustrated by the fact that the U.S. is the only country responsible for helping these countries fix their problems. In my opinion, we should be focusing more on forming joint task forces and alliances to help distribute the international responsibility for humanitarian and military issues such as this.
ReplyDelete