Post #6: Syria - Due 12/15
On November 13th ISIS (or ISIL or Daesh) attacked multiple civilian targets in Paris, France killing hundreds of people. That same week ISIS had also conducted major attacks on civilians in Beirut and Iraq. In a new video ISIS claims it will attack New York City shortly.
The topic of the civil war in Syria and ISIS will become a major issue in the presidential campaign. Here is an introduction to the candidates' views:
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart
On Friday, December 18th we will discuss U.S. foreign policy towards Syria. I know that's not a fun holiday topic but we will use some creative thinking tools that day and I want to do something other than give a test that day. The goal is for this blog post to prepare you for the discussion.
Your prompt is:
Assess U.S. foreign policy in Syria and Iraq. What have been the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. policy so far? What do you think Obama and the next president should do on this issue?
Be sure to cite a minimum of 3 sources in your post. It might be helpful though for you to read more than 3 sources though because you are also going to need to prepared to discuss this issue with the class. See me if you need help researching.
Due on Tuesday, December 15th.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 8:43 AM
26 Comments:
Above all, a distinction has to be made in regards to what U.S. foreign policy looks like for each individual country as well as U.S. foreign policy is to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and ISIS. The events of the past both directly and indirectly influence what particular policies that the U.S. adopts in regards to these conflicts and situations. As a world leader, the United States must set forth an image that is consistent with its ideals, thus spreading democracy and promoting human rights. At the same time however, the United States when dealing with threats of terrorism gives way to an almost uncompromising ideology in which it classifies all the people of that group as evil or those of a particular regime such as the one in Syria (1). Whether just or unjust, right or wrong, the U.S. has done this time and time again. When the U.S. has both of these conflicts simultaneously, there is a conflict of interest where the U.S., while being consistent in its supporting of human rights and giving aid to those in need, is not black and white in the message that it projects. This is not a new idea, with the U.S. having once supported dictators it later helped to overthrow such as in the case of Saddam Hussein (2).
Strengths of current U.S. policy in regards to Syria and the policies applied to Iraq are varied. To begin with, by not sending troops into Syria, the United States is trying to avoid further conflict and the possibility of entering yet another unpopular war. Based on mistakes made in U.S. policy in Iraq by toppling Saddam Hussein under the false pretext of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. is seeking to avoid going prematurely into war. Although the United States would not be going to war for the same reasons, it is still a controversial issue among many Americans. The U.S. government has stated that though ISIS poses a threat to global peace, it will not work with Syria due to its use of chemical weapons (1). However, while the United States does not want to work with Syria in terms of limiting the threat of ISIS, it is employing a policy that it used in Iraq in which it will not directly coordinate with Syria to launch missile strikes at known ISIS camps, it will monitor Syrian air force activities and not fly in the same regions (1). Another strength of current U.S. policy is giving aid to those that desperately need it, despite caustic rhetoric from candidates for the GOP nomination in the U.S. presidential race. While the Obama administration has stated that it will accept Syrian refugees, many senators, representatives, and governors are opposed. In my opinion, it is the duty of the U.S. to act as a defender of human rights, though not necessarily an enforcer. It is important to note that the U.S., in donating supplies and training Syrian rebels that it is taking a stance against the Assad regime, though it is not declaring outright war. (Part 1/2)
(Part 2/2)
Weaknesses of current and former foreign policies are just as varied. To begin with, the U.S. did go into Iraq with the notion that there were weapons of mass destruction. This massive foreign policy blunder resulted in the United States losing further credibility within the Middle East, even going so far as to create sentiments against the U.S. Further, weaknesses in not acting and overseeing the governments that were set up in Iraq and other parts of the world, particularly in Latin America, further caused problems for the United States (3). In hopes of avoiding this, the United States is trying to take a different approach with Syria, though its efforts are viewed by many as not doing enough. A hands-off approach will not achieve the results that the United States hopes it will (3). The conflict in Syria resulting from the Arab Spring uprisings will not be like the conflicts that occurred in Egypt or Tunisia. It has costed many more lives, over 250,000 and change has yet to be seen (3). In addition, the illusion that neutrality can be achieved in these conflicts is not practical and cannot be sought by the U.S. (3).
Going forward, it seems that the best approach to dealing with the two issues - dealing with ISIS and dealing with Syria - would be to deal with ISIS first, as it is the greater threat to the Middle East. Although the crisis in Syria needs to be dealt with, from a strategic standpoint, the U.S. would be in a better position to negotiate with countries that are in conflict. While we shouldn’t become further involved with the Syrian crisis, I absolutely believe that we as a nation should accept refugees and give humanitarian aid to those affected by the Syrian Civil War. In many ways, I think that these views fall more in between those of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (4). I think that the Obama Administration is doing everything it can at this point to try and juggle the many different foreign policy issues that are currently facing the U.S. Truly there seems to be no ideal or “right” answer to what steps should be taken by Obama and the next U.S. president. Every option ends up leading towards more confusion and a bigger mess to try and make sense of. One thing is certain though, the U.S. must be willing to reflect on its past mistakes in order to reach a viable solution to conflicts in the Middle East.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/15/whats-in-a-word-confusion-about-u-s-policy-toward-syria/ (1)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/uspolicy/ (2)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/middle-east-egypt-us-policy/409537/ (3)
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart (4)
A strength of U.S foreign policy in Syria and Iraq has been its ability to forge a broad coalition against ISIS including Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France and Germany. With the help of these countries, another strength of U.S policy in Syria has been its successful airstrikes against oil reserves controlled by ISIS members. “Two airstrikes, the most recent over the weekend, have destroyed almost 500 tanker trucks ISIS uses to smuggle oil and sell it on the black market” (1). By one estimate, these attacks have destroyed roughly half the trucks ISIS uses to bring in $1 million a day in revenues. (1). Another strength of the U.S has been its ability to target and kill major leaders of the Islamic State, including Hafiz Saeed who was killed along with 30 other insurgents in a strike on their compound in the Achin region of Nangarhar Province (2). By targeting these leaders the United States and its other coalition countries have been able to disrupt some of the organization and planning of the Islamic State. I think that one of the weaknesses of the U.S. involvement in Syria has been its attempt to topple Assad while at the same time combating ISIS. If our main focus is to combat ISIS, attempting to overturn Assad at the same time causes unnecessary complications. Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said sunday that “The United States should be more focused on defeating ISIS than ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “ (3). Furthermore he stated, "I don't think you're going to find a resolution to Assad until you figure out how you're going to deal with ISIS." (3). If Assad is to be removed from power, who will end up controlling the power vacuum left after his removal? As for the next president, whether it be a Democratic or Republican, they will inherit a quagmire of conflicting policies. I think that the future president should put their focus on combating the Islamic State rather than the takedown of Assad.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-airstrikes-against-isis-target-oil-tanker-trucks/ (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/11/asia/isis-leader-killed-afghanistan/ (2)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/chuck-hagel-syria-isis-assad/ (3)
The current policy in Syria and Iraq is confusing to many people, and there are many events that have transpired within the past couple of years to complicated matters further. The basis of ISIS is the belief that people should follow after their “supreme ruler”, and swear allegiance to the Islamic Law. However, their beliefs are extreme and do not follow the beliefs of Muslims (1). In the past, personnel and troops have been sent in to protect innocent Iraqi civilians through training police forces and other military personnel to protect civilians against ISIS and protect the US Embassy which has been at risk many times. Obama has also approved many air strikes across the region to aim for ISIS bases (1). Currently, however, Obama has called for attacks against the Islamic State itself. This is a large wage of war, as he, as well as previous presidents, are waging war against an ideology, not a specific nation. We have had travel restrictions and economic sanctions in the past, some of which have been lifted (2). This was to stop providing this group with money and supplies which they could use to bring more terror across the world. The hope of economic sanctions was somewhat unsuccessful as the ISIS group doesn’t rely on the United States for any reason, let alone economic reasons (2).
Dealing with the issue at home has strengths and weaknesses. I have found that most of the strengths come with weaknesses as well. Some of these duos of strengths and weaknesses include the bombings, the economic sanctions, and the ability to get other countries to back up our programs and ideas. The bombings have been a strength and weakness, actually, as they have diminished ISIS’s ability to earn money through selling petroleum, but have also destroyed many towns and areas which made no difference in the war (3). By destroying the pipelines and oil producing areas, the US has cut the money ISIS brings in by a large amount (2). The added weakness for this strength is that towns and land is killed in the meantime to destroy pipelines and oil centers. Another strength is that the economic sanctions and travel restrictions have forced ISIS to go elsewhere for money to fund themselves. They have forced ISIS to sell their oil to small countries and middlemen to raise a profit. As we will not buy oil produced by ISIS, they must find other places to earn a profit (2). A final strength (which really does not have a weakness linked to it) is that fact that there is a coalition which formed in support of the US’s policy of airstrikes (3). This coalition has made it easier for other countries to get involved and show that they believe what ISIS is doing is bad without waging full on war; they simply must adopt some of the policies we have such as economic sanctions.
For the future president, and for Obama, I think that our current policy is working well, but we have to do something more. Some of the candidates believe that we should send in troops, which I think we should avoid if possible, and use other ways to stop ISIS. I think that the President should continue to help out the citizens by helping economically as much as possible, but should not send troops in. We can supply food and clean water to civilians to those who need it, as well as possibly even schooling the children (4). I feel that declaring war against an ideology is a long and tough war to wage, and we should be wary about sending in a full supply of troops. I also feel that economic sanctions are the right way to go, as money is everything in today’s world. With a coalition, we could nearly cut off all the revenue of ISIS, and stop their ability to grow further (4). This issue is becoming more and more important and something should be done soon to make a stance and combat ISIS.
1-http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144
2-http://www.cfr.org/iraq/islamic-state/p14811
3-http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-airstrikes-against-isis-target-oil-tanker-trucks/
4 http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart
US foreign policy in Syria has been fairly weak, the powers that be do not feel like committing any resources. I believe that if we are going to have any involvement in the region we should fully commit. I do support the administration's thoughts on not collaborating with Assad (2). I believe that the best course of action going forward is to collaborate with Russia to replace Assad with someone sympathetic to both sides. Use this new leader to coordinate the fight against ISIS and create a government in Iraq that is backed by both Russia and the US. This way with the resources from both powers democracy will have a stronger grip on the Iraqi people. I also believe that when it comes to the refugee crisis we should work on solving the problem at its source. The US. and its allies should be focusing on removing ISIS as a threat and supporting the rebuilding of Iraq and Syria, under new governments of course. I also believe that the US. and European countries should not be bearing as much of the burden of refugees. Other Gulf States should be bearing the refugees as well. This is one issue I believe that the current administration has been slack about.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?400138-1/hearing-russian-military-involvement-syria
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/15/whats-in-a-word-confusion-about-u-s-policy-toward-syria
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/uspolicy/
I believe that the United States’ policy in Syria has more weaknesses than strengths. A large strength that the policy thus far has been is reducing the amount of U.S. troops on the ground in direct conflict. I believe that using the drones bombing method has saved a great amount of U.S. lives (3). The weaknesses include the U.S. in its wariness to support Syrian refugees out of islamophobia . Foreign policy has become riddled with the fear of the Islamic States’ acts of terror that it fails to recognize refugees in need, regardless of their religion (4). Another weakness, I believe, is taking the side of the rebels. The United States should have focused the attack on ISIS itself rather than Assad. In its support of the Sunni rebels, it further divides the two Muslim groups. I believe that the method of government should not be put in the United States, because that has been our failure in the Middle East before. If the Assad regime continues despite our support of the rebels, then anti-American sentiment will proliferate even more so. Another weakness of the Unites States’ foreign policy in Syria has been its timidness. The policy has altered, recently saying it would cooperate with other countries in order to find a “political mechanism” (2). However, Russia has been supporting the Assad regime with more direct military support than the United States has been supporting the rebels.
I believe that all future Presidents on this issue should either make a firm decision in one of two ways: an isolationist point of view or a realistic point of view. I believe that who controls the government of Syria is ultimately not our responsibility. If we continue supporting the opposite group as Russia, it may escalate to a wide-scale war between the two superpowers (2). As long as we support the refugees financially to set up somewhere in Europe, Syria should be left to either itself or to Middle Eastern powers nearby. Otherwise, in the realistic point of view we must intensify the amount of military support is in the country. If we truly want to show we are the world’s military superpower we cannot sit idly while Russia opposes us on this issue. We also cannot let the Islamic State be a threat to our country, and must dramatically increase the number of troops and weapons we have fighting the Assad regime. But either way, the President has to be decisive and quickly, because in the middle ground we currently are at, we are getting no results for the rebels or for the United States.
(1)http://www.cfr.org/syria/american-options-syria/p26226
(2)http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/29/russias-moves-in-syria-expose-weakness-of-us-anti-isis-strategy
(3)http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/19/official-mission-creep-timeline-us-war-in-syria-obama-administration/
(4 http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/09/09/3699739/united-states-syrian-refugees/
In Syria currently, the people are starting to fight back against the Assad regime. There is no end to the violence and chaos that has ensued due to the Assad regime killing and displacing a large portion of the population (3). Regarding US foreign policy in the Middle East, the United States has put too much on their plate. The government has attempted to handle Assad and ISIS at the same time, and it is essentially impossible to squash either if it is not being focused on. In essence, the United States should focus on whichever one it feels is more important in a worldly scope, which is ISIS. It is too late now, but the US government should have chosen one over the other in the beginning. Especially if the aid against the Assad regime fails, the anti-American sentiments are just going to increase. The US government has turned its attention away from trying to change the government in Syria, but that means that they have to look at other options that could result in war (2). As a result of the United States foreign policy not having a concrete focus on either Syria or Iraq, the overall policy has been weak. This hurts the image of the United States that the rest of the world, and especially the Middle East, sees. The one constant strength that the US has in its foreign policy is how it has aligned its views with other countries like France and Germany. The United States would have an extremely hard time trying to win this battle on its own. Countries are already banded together, like Saudi Arabia and Russia to try and take Assad down from the presidency (4).
Current and future political leaders need to have a focus on how they want to handle foreign policy. The United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and whatever it does is going to make a difference, whether it is appreciated or makes everything worse. It would be advantageous to collaborate with other countries who also want to fight terrorism and related issues in the Middle East. Future presidents will be faced with this issue, which may expand or worsen in the upcoming years. They will have their own beliefs on how foreign policy should be dealt with, but they will most likely be a realist or idealist. Many of the candidates hold a realist perspective when it comes to foreign policy, but it is unclear of how they will act as president (1). When faced with these issues in Syria and Iraq, they should turn their attention to the Islamic extremists instead of splitting their focus between that and Syria.
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart (1)
http://www.cfr.org/syria/american-options-syria/p26226 (2)
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/ci/sy/index.htm (3)
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/11/british-defense-minister-fallon-path-to-syrian-peace-brightened-by-unity-on-assads-future?int=935d08 (4)
In order to have an effective foreign policy in Syria and the Middle East as a whole, the U.S. would need to decide what it wants the outcome to be. At one point it may have been just to make money, now however I think that most people in the United States can agree that we want to degrade and get rid of ISIS, and to establish order in Syria. The means to do this though are unclear and U.S. foreign policy I think, is purposely vague[1]. One of the main strengths that U.S. policy has however, is its support in the number of allies that we have on our side. Many European countries and other Middle Eastern countries support the same cause that we do. We have resources and money that the other belligerents don’t even come close to. While this may seem like a large advantage, in practice it doesn’t seem to be. The US has dropped as many as 5600 bombs on ISIS militant sites and spent about $9.4 million dollars a day[2]. Yet the results seem to be negligible as ISIS continues to gain land and commit countless acts of terror. While it is easy to criticize the United State’s policy, there is no easy solution to this problem. Every act has its caveats and every solution its consequences, and all the while everything has become more complicated with Russia's involvement. Ideally in the future the United States should further coalesce with other powerful countries such as Russia or China, and other countries that feel that ISIS is a threat and conduct a mix of economic sanctions and militaristic action that would lead to their destruction. Syria on the other hand is difficult to deal with because of Russia’s recent support of Assad[3]. I think that any intervention in the Syrian government is too risky and would rather wait out the current situation before making any irrevocable decisions.
[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-h-hamilton/middle-east-continues-to-_b_7139000.html
[2]http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/08/07/operation-inherent-resolve-one-year-after-first-bombs-fell/31222041/
[3]http://abcnews.go.com/International/analyzing-russias-support-syrias-bashar-al-assad/story?id=22534530
In the 2014 statement President Obama addressed to the citizens of the United States, he laid out a simplified four point policy plan to deal with the growing terrorism in Syria. “Working alongside the Iraqi government, we'll expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people to hit ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. And we will continue to hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, whether in Iraq, or Syria. They will learn what leaders of other terrorist organizations have already learned: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” Step one of this plan was carried out through systematic airstrikes. We took out ISIL hotspots from the sky. Step two was to increase US support to local fighters on the ground. “We will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq to support Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. These American forces will not have a combat mission. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment -- and tonight, I again called on Congress to give our military the additional authorities and resources it needs to train and equip the Syrian opposition fighters.” We planned to use our counterterrorism capabilities to prevent future ISIL attacks. This was step three. “We will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding, counter its warped ideology, improve our intelligence, strengthen our defenses, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.” The final step, step four, consisted of providing humanitarian aid to the innocent civilians, the collateral damage. This plan will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This plan is our relentless approach to take out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting our partners on the front lines. Obama also mentioned that although he has the power to address the issue himself, he wants the backing of Congress in order to show that Americans are united in putting an end to this terrorism. (1) As of three days ago (Dec 12, 2015), our airstrikes are hitting ISIL harder that ever, taking out both fighters and leaders. We have destroyed their weapons and oil tankers along the way. By not putting combat troops on the ground, we have prevented hundreds and thousands of potential American casualties. With Russia backing the Syrian President, we have limited power. We are being forced to work with Russia to resolve this issue. That alone is a weakness to the plan. We have historically not seen eye to eye with Russia so it will be interesting to see how this works itself out. (3) 12 of the 17 candidates want some degree of troops on the ground. (2) Personally, I would rather not send troops over. I would rather we leave causing American casualties as a very last resort. This is a long and complicating issue and I don’t think we should be sending people over to fight until we are confident we can win with minimal casualties.
1:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/10/president-obama-how-were-responding-isil-threat
2: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart
3:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/29/russias-moves-in-syria-expose-weakness-of-us-anti-isis-strategy
(Part 1 of 2)
In regards to aid, the United States has provided civilians in Syria with humanitarian aid and social programs since 2011 (2) and has provided military assistance to rebels opposing the Syrian government (3). Since September of last year, however, the US became more involved when the increasing threat imposed by militant group ISIS has muddled the conflict with Syria and the Middle East. The United States has been conducting airstrikes on ISIS and other militant groups in Syria since then, along with other nations as a part of a multilateral effort. America has also attempted to train Syrian rebels to combat ISIS on the ground (3). Relating to US foreign policy in Iraq, the formation of ISIS can be traced back to the Bush administration's mishandling of the area (4). The rise of a militant Islamic State could be sensed back in 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq and ousted their leader Saddam Hussein under false pretenses and now, almost all of the leaders of ISIS are former Iraqi officers (5).
American foreign policy in Syria was originally about displacing their autocratic leader Bashar al-Assad, for reasons that could possibly have contributions from a multitude of things including humanitarian abuses in Syria, the Saudis displeasure with Syria’s Alawite government, Israel’s objections to Hezbollah (who are supported by Syria and Iran) or maybe even to rob Russian weapons industries of the lucrative market in the Middle East (1). In reality, I don’t believe that the United States has involved itself in Syria because the US follows an idealist philosophy. If that were the case, the US would not have such good relations with Saudi Arabia, which for example has a monarch and grants women very little rights; Saudi Arabia is needed for oil so in my mind it follows that ousting the Syrian government is needed for something other than the excuse of instilling democracy. I think it has more to do with relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel (1). For example, Israel doesn’t like the militant group Hezbollah; Shiite Hezbollah receives aid from Alawite-led nations like Syria and Iran. If the US were able to replace Bashar al-Assad with a pro-American leader, who listened to the US and Israel via the US, then this would please both countries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
(Part 2 of 2)
I haven’t been able to see many strengths to United States foreign policy relating to Syria and Iraq. First of all, US military assistance in fighting ISIS has been weak and the program to train rebel soldiers in Syria has been ineffective (3), so while the country has been acting, its methods are wasteful and inefficient. Further I think that these weak efforts are rendered futile with the Russian government backing up the Syrian government so adamantly and attacking Syrian rebels through airstrikes (3). US sympathies for the Syrian rebels and civilians have little meaning when it is considered that our government has been so reluctant to accept Syrian refugees seeking asylum (6).
As for the future, my own personal view of what should be done I doubt would seem very appealing to Obama or any of the presidential candidates, so I’m offering two strategies. Firstly, my own belief is that we should just leave Syria alone, which isn’t really on any candidate’s agenda (7). Syria can be expected to face turmoil that will most likely last for many years seeing as a minority group has been in power, but that is part of the power readjustment process; US involvement in Syria would be a costly, long-term commitment (1). The US government’s focus should be on fighting ISIS and a much more effective way to combat them would be to compromise with Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government (6). My other suggestion would be to somehow get a hold of Iran. Assad in Syria is close to fellow Shiite power Iran (3) so I think that if the US government had Iran under its belt and maintained good relations with the regional superpower, Syria would follow Iran, and by extension, the United States.
Sources:
(1) http://www.dawn.com/news/1040275
(2) http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/10/04/228504494/do-you-know-what-the-u-s-government-is-up-to-in-syria
(3) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23849587
(4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/jeb-bush-isis_n_7284558.html
(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/jeb-bush-isis_n_7284558.html
(6) http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-29/obama-and-putin-move-toward-a-syria-compromise
(7) http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart
The US’s foreign policy in Syria and Iraq is convoluted and complicated, and it would be impossible to cover all facets of this topics in one multi-paragraph blog post, but there are a few key issues all readers should be aware of. In addition to this key knowledge, readers must take into account the effect that the US’s actions have on the rest of the world. Whether we like it or not, our country is at the forefront of the world’s news stories, for both good and bad reasons. For example, one of the worst images the US has been projecting over the past months and years since 9/11 is the characterization of all Muslims as terrorists. Just recently, with the floods of migrants washing up on European shores, Fox News showed a video of Muslims on a European train, chanting “Allahu Akbar.” This phrase literally means “God is great,” however, the Fox anchor referred to it as a terrifying chant, and questioned whether or not some of these people were terrorists. The station even put the word “refugees” in quotes (1), as if these people aren't actually refugees but have some other darker intention. This is just one example of US “foreign policy” when it comes to Syria. While it may not be an explicit policy such as sanctions or tariffs, it is how the world sees us addressing the issue, and is just as damning in many eyes.
When it comes to actual, stated foreign policy, US politicians have changed stances so many times it is almost impossible to keep track. As of September, the Obama administration’s official stance was to take a much broader and open-ended approach than he has favored so far in his presidency. Obama plans to actively pursue ISIS extremists over the next few years, a policy that will almost definitely carry over into the next president’s term (3). However, he does not plan to send in ground troops or engage in nation building like it did in Iraq in 2003. At least Americans have learned something from the mistakes of Iraq. In addition, Obama plans to work closely with partners on the ground in Syria, again learning from the mistakes of Bush’s attempt to take a unilateral approach to Iraq (3). Russia is the US’s biggest opposition when it comes to this collaboration however. The Russian leadership has decided to back the Assad regime, declaring that “they believe the path to stability in Syria is by strengthening the Assad regime” (4). This could lead to problems in the future, with the US often backing the Syrian rebels, and Assad violating many of his people’s human rights, with government officials indiscriminately attacking the population, making arrests, illegal detentions, etc (5).
There are many possible solutions to the problems posed by the ongoing conflict in Syria. Many of these problems stem from the divided front between the West and the Russians, who disagree on the essential way to change the situation in Syria: the Assad regime. Due to this and the US’s current level of involvement in Syria and the rest of the Middle East, I believe that the Obama administration and presidents to come should follow the basic principles laid out by Randa Selim, Director of the Initiative for Track II Dialogues at the DC-based Middle East Institute and non-resident fellow at the Johns Hopkins University SAIS Foreign Policy Institute. Mrs. Selim argues that the prominent issue facing both sides of the conflict is the continued presence of Assad and his regime. As Selim notes, “Evidence abounds that, at the beginning of this crisis, Assad facilitated and manipulated ISIL as one of the tools in his political survival toolbox” (6). I agree with her, and I believe that the best course of action for the US is to bring this evidence before the Russians and negotiate a scenario in which they agree to longer back Assad and help the US to increase military pressure on Assad and not let him gain ground or achieve a military victory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqvYhb3wf4
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/11/347377008/obamas-plan-the-pros-and-cons
http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-west-diverge-on-tactics-in-syria-1450130474
https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/syria
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/analysis-plan-save-syria-150930083231637.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foreign policy has always been a crucial issue in the past elections, and will continue to be in the next. Recently, ISIS has been the most talked about issue in foreign policy and in general. I think that the U.S. foreign policy with Syria and Iraq has been quite weak as many issues with ISIS are unresolved and continue to bring conflict. In August 2014, the U.S. started military action in Syria to stop the powers of ISIS (1). However, more than a year later, the progress is minimal and the military has failed to raise an army of men in Syria that could combat ISIS. This action cost over 590 million dollars (4). ISIS has about 30,000 men, whereas the U.S. has trained only about 10,000 men (rebels) in Syria (1). ISIS also obtains a lot of territory in Syria and Iraq, and the U.S. has not been able to get a sufficient amount back (1). The U.S. has failed to recruit men that will not only fight ISIS, but also Assad’s (President of Syria) army that has killed many innocent civilians in its efforts to stop ISIS (1). Another weakness of our foreign policy with Syria and Iraq is that we have let Iran become the leader in the war against ISIS (1). Iran is doing more military wise, which makes them look like they care more for the civilians in Syria and Iraq (1). According to this article, America has left a void without its proper engagement in the middle east, and now ISIS and Assad’s regime have come into great power (1).
Although America’s foreign policy with Syria and Iraq has been weak, there are actions that we have taken to try and stop or diminish ISIS’s power in the middle east. The first is that recently, under Obama’s control, airstrikes have been made in Syria and Iraq that have killed leaders (not the leader himself) in ISIS (2). This is showing that the U.S. does want to have adequate and strong military action that will lessen the power of ISIS (2). Also, according to Obama, ISIS has lost control of almost 40% of its territory it once held in Iraq because of America’s assistance (2). Although the U.S. foreign policy in Syria and Iraq is not at the strength that it needs to be at to “beat” ISIS, it has made efforts that have helped.
As far as what Obama has done with foreign policy regarding ISIS, I think that in the past he was not forceful enough with ISIS and now the problem has only grown. However, I also know that ISIS is a huge and confusing issue that would be difficult for any president of America to face. Obama has changed his attitude toward ISIS recently (in June he admitted America didn’t have a plan to defeat ISIS) and is being more aggressive (2). I think that spending money on this issue and creating an army that can defeat ISIS is appropriate and a valid idea because ISIS is not only harming the middle east, but many other countries around the world. Adding on to that, It is a security threat to America. I also think that Obama should continue with airstrikes that are targeted at leaders and at the oil operations of ISIS (2). This will slowly diminish the power that ISIS holds on Iraq and Syria. For the next president, I think that they should continue a more aggressive fight against ISIS especially because of what happened recently in France. Sanders said that he would want middle eastern countries “to step up more in the fight,” which I agree with (3). Although these countries may not have the same resources that we do to fight ISIS because of the current devastation there, if men (especially rebels) are willing to fight ISIS without hurting civilians, I think this will greatly impact the control that ISIS has. If more are willing to participate, it would create for a larger army that would be prepared to defeat ISIS. Also, I think that the next president will need to assess whether it will be the most beneficial to America and other countries to declare war. Clinton, Bush, and Cruz are all candidates that said that they think the U.S. should declare war (3). The next president, whoever it may be, should be prepared to stop ISIS and make decisions that will help to do so.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/25/its-not-too-late-to-save-iraq-and-syria-marco-rubuio/ (1)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-led-coalition-hitting-isis-harder-obama/story?id=35753628 (2)
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart (3)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/obama-deflects-blame-for-syria-plan-failure/?page=all (4)
United States foreign policy in Iraq and Syria over the last few years has primarily been focused on Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, as well as the terrorist group, ISIS. The Assad regime has been killing thousands and thousands of rebels who had been trying to gain control of the Syrian government (3). Eventually, Assad agreed to an agreement between the United States and Russia to destroy all of Syria’s chemical weapons they had on hand (3). Since then, the United States has spent less time and money on taking down the Assad regime and has focused on destroying ISIS. Since the Paris attacks in early November, “the U.S.-led military coalition has been hitting ISIS “harder than ever”” (2). President Obama met with his National Security Council at the Pentagon yesterday to discuss a more aggressive plan to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria (2). In the last year alone, the United States and its coalition partners have launched almost 9,000 airstrikes against ISIS since last year (2). Also recently, many ISIS leaders have been killed by these airstrikes, weakening the terrorist group (2).
I believe the airstrikes to be strengths in the United States foreign policy against ISIS. They have proven to be at least somewhat successful, and have even taken back land that was once controlled by ISIS (2). In particular, these airstrikes have destroyed access to previously ISIS controlled oil, in turn cutting off income that ISIS partially relied on (2). The airstrikes have also destroyed “their fighting positions, bunkers, and staging areas; their heavy weapons, bomb-making factories, compounds and training camps” which I see as a positive thing (2).
However, while these actions are making some progress, progress is not coming soon enough. The United States is spending millions of dollars each day on this issue, and I only see that as a weakness. I think that the next president of the United States will have a really hard time in choosing what needs to be done about this issue. First and foremost, I think that the next president cannot use the term “radical Islam” or anything of the sort. It’s an oversimplification of the Islamic faith and creates islamophobia. As of right now, all but one of the Republican candidates believe that it is okay to use this and like terms, which I do not believe is okay (1). Our next president must also be open to letting Syrian refugees into our country, and must stand to fight the anti-Muslim sentiment that is building up because of the use of the phrase “radical Islam” and ridiculous policies that some candidates have proposed such as Donald Trump’s plan to keep Muslims out of the country (4). Furthermore, I think that the next president must be prepared to take measures to protect the innocent citizens of Syria by letting them into our country. I also think that the president must take more drastic measures in the fight against ISIS, especially since ISIS has threatened the White House in a newly released video (5). There is no perfect solution to this foreign policy issue, but the next president must act upon it and make the best decision that he or she can make.
Sources:
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/politics/obama-pentagon-isis-strategy/index.html (2)
http://www.bbc.com/news/10338256 (3)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/ (4)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325952/The-White-House-turn-black-fire-Allah-willing-ISIS-warns-fresh-attacks-Washington-video-threaten-America-days.html (5)
Although Obama has been a little bi-polar on his stance on Syrian intervention over the course of his two terms, I personally believe that, by and large, his foreign policy has been beneficial to the United States and often undeservedly criticised. Protecting Yazidis, supporting the Kurds, and the gradual distancing from Syrian rebels are all wise and restrained foreign policy decisions will create a pathway to a strong coalition effort against the rise of ISIS. Many mischaracterize ISIS as a terror cell like Al-Queda or fail to understand just how theocratic and ideological the self proclaimed caliphate is (Atlantic). ISIS cannot be talked down nor can it be ignored, it must be destroyed through military action. However, America as a nation must understand what the consequences of a direct military confrontation really is. Obama understands that a full commitment to a ground war on ISIS or a more involved meddling in the Syrian civil war would mean decades of military commitment, further strained relationship with the Middle East, and further disintegrating relationships with Putin’s Russia. Obama understands that the only way to deal with this international threat is to encourage internal fighters like the Kurds while striking against ISIS from a distance. What the Republican candidates will not mention is how over the past few months, ISIS’s strength and hold over the region has significantly decreased under the Obama administration. Obama did not lie when he said “We are hitting ISIL harder than ever”(Defense). Under the coalition he helped organize, almost half of their Iraqi territory has been liberated using over 16,000 airstrikes.
The administration's worst mistake in my opinion had been their commitment to the Syrian rebels. I agree that as a leader nation, it is important to encourage democracy everywhere, especially when they oppose tyrants as brutal and malicious as Assad. However, I think that many Americans underestimate how irrational and zealous the people of the Middle East really are. When Egypt was given democracy, they elected a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who found himself overthrown himself within a year, when Gaza was given democracy, they immediately elected the terrorist organization Hamas to power. If the Syrian rebels prove to be no different, than our support for them is as futile and shortsighted as our support for their neighbors (Economist). Although it is a hard truth to swallow, I simply don't believe that many of these Arab nations are truly ready for democracy and sometimes the new regime can be even worse than the old one. Dictators like Hussein and Assad, as terrible as they are, did effectively hold back religious extremists and the power vacuums their absences create allow for these barbaric and theocratic organizations to take hold (Washington Post).
Obama has already began to take steps in the right direction. Focus in Syria has been directed away from who will run the nation after the war to how can we defeat ISIS. Coalition works, international summits, and open lines for negotiation all spell an improvement in U.S. interests rather than a fall. Although it appears that it is already too late for Assad, NATO should seriously look at the political atmosphere of Syria and keep a close eye on the future that the democratic Syrians are actually forging. Ultimately, the current course of action will see an end to ISIS within the next five years and unavoidable political uncertainty in that region for an indeterminate amount of time.
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/634118/obama-isil-being-hit-harder-than-ever-will-be-defeated
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/23/how-the-united-states-helped-create-the-islamic-state/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/iran-and-syria
Currently, the situation in Syria is very dire. Ever since an incident in which students were arrested, detained, and tortured in 2011, the Syrian government, protesters, and rebel forces have fought, causing civil war and unrest. This tumult has caused millions of Syrian reugees to flee the country and become refugees. To make matters worse, the extremist group ISIS has invaded Eastern Syria and gained land and power there, making them a growing threat to the Middle East and the world (1). The situation in Iraq is not much better either. ISIS has grown exponentially in Iraq, and although they have adopted a democratic government and have held elections for parliaments, their method of governing is still very weak (6). Neither of these situations is easy to solve; they require a many-pronged approach-- not just military aid but also humanitarian and diplomatic aid.
The US has already acted in a few ways towards bringing peace back to Syria. For example, the President Obama and the US have been part of an international community, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, that stopped Syria from producing chemical weapons (2). The pros to this group stopping chemical-weapons production is that since chemical weapons are so devastating to people and the country, rendering Syria incapable of the use of those kinds of weapons is an important first step for defeating ISIS and restoring peace. The con to this, though, is that this solution is not guaranteed to last, and the government and the rebels have other weapons they can use that are just as potent. The US government has also called for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, since Assad will not cooperate with a change to a democratic government (3). Although the US is providing aid to Syria, it has also been sanctioning the country since 2004, and adding to those sanctions as time has passed (4). These sanctions help in that they somewhat inhibit bad moves on Syria’s part, but they don’t work if only the US has these sanctions; Syria can just receive money from other countries. On the subject of the refugee crisis, the US State Department says it is concerned by the crisis and is currently providing aid to refugees (4). This is crucial-- providing aid to these refugees helps them greatly, but letting them into America is a better option. In Iraq, the group USIP has gone into Iraq to stop feuds and bring peace and cohesion to governing. The positive of this is that it has strengthened the government in Iraq, however, it is only one small group benefitting the cause, and one group cannot support the weight of trying to fix a government.
Part 2
There is more that the US can do to stop the fighting in Syria and maybe bring peace. There are many differing propositions on what America should do to end Syrian conflict and ISIS. In Syria, a couple solutions to the problem of Assad ruling is to turn members of his army against him through intervention by us and other countries (3). The members of Assad’s regime are all like him because they are Alawite, but members of the government and army have different levels of loyalty to Assad. By having the US convince these troops that they are fighting a losing battle and would not benefit to sticking around, members of the government’s fighting forces may desert and weaken the Syrian tyranny (3). Another solution is to find a way to unite the rebel forces. Currently, there may be up to 1,000 different groups opposing the Syrian government (1). If the US found a way to convince all of them to join together to defeat Assad, they may find a way to topple the regime faster (3). A part of this solution means that the US needs to start accepting Syrian refugees. These refugees are not a threat, and getting them out of Syria will reduce the casualties of the war. These goals may require a sending-in of US troops or diplomats to Syria to consult with the individual leaders of some of the regimes. On the subject of ISIS, there are many differing views on how to conquer it. All of the candidates who include the issue of ISIS in their platform, with the exception of Cruz, Sanders, and Fiorina, want to send in troops in some format to fight ISIS (5). Some candidates want to invoke NATO 5 if an act of aggression occurs, and a few even want to flat-out declare war. However, the key solution to this problem is to dismantle ISIS bit by bit in Syria and Iraq (which will benefit the Iraqi people and their government), and then work on reducing their influence around the world, whether that means sending troops to destroy ISIS refuges or engaging in ISIS fighters (7). The crises in Syria and Iraq can be solved, but they can’t be solved easily or just by the US.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/16979186 (1)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria (2)
http://www.cfr.org/syria/american-options-syria/p26226 (3)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm (4)
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart (5)
http://www.usip.org/publications/the-current-situation-in-iraq (6)
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/hillary-clinton-again-lays-out-defeat-isis-strategy-for-defeating-isis/ (7)
The foreign policy of the United States in Syria and the broader Middle East has mostly been successful, but with some ideological incongruities. One problem I see with the region is the issue of the Kurds. Right now, the US is supporting the Kurds in their fight against the IS [1]. On one hand this makes some sense, the Kurds are directly opposed to ISIS and we share a common enemy. However, I question how short our memories are. Whenever we’ve armed groups in the Middle East, even when they were fighting our enemies, it came back to bite us. Look at the Mujahadeen, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, al-Yawar’s Iraq, and even ISIS, which we armed trying to take down Assad [2]. If we continue to arm the Kurds, they will undoubtedly turn these weapons against Turkey and innocent Sunnis, which they already have begun to do [3]. As for the broader course of the war, all evidence points to the fact that ISIS is crumbling [5]. Clearly a “state” which rules through terror, is completely reliant on oil (especially since the price is now tumbling), and is being attacked on all sides cannot be sustained. ISIS will topple by itself, the world is just helping it along. ISIS itself is not a real threat to us, the two problems I still see ahead are in terms of international cooperation and the refugee crisis.
Most people are familiar with the Turkish-Russian incident involving a jet being shot down which occurred recently. Unless there is cooperation in the world, these events will only continue to happen. As of now, there are two major international forces fighting in Syria, the NATO US led coalition and the Russian-Iranian pact [4]. Unless there is cooperation amongst these parties, accidents will happen. More Russian jets, and some American ones, will be shot down inadvertently. With relations between the West and Russia shaky enough, a high profile incident could push things over the edge.
As for the refugees, I think from a humanitarian perspective it’s obvious that they should be accepted with open arms. However, from a more practical perspective, the refugees offer an opportunity to combat radical Islam globally. ISIS, and other fundamentalists, push the message that the US and the West are leading a crusade against Islam, the true caliphate is in the process of being restored where Muslims can practice freely. From a public relations perspective, the mass exodus of Muslims from ISIS controlled areas is a nightmare for ISIS. Imagine if Israel, a state centered around being the Jewish homeland, couldn’t retain their own Jewish population. When leading presidential candidates say we’re going to close our borders, not even allow “orphans and widows” into our country, and ban mosques, it only confirms the narrative which ISIS is pushing. Imagine instead if the West welcomed Muslims with open arms, with tolerance and with understanding. Nothing would de-radicalize borderline extremists more than this.
[1]http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/10/us-arm-syria-kurds-rebels-isis.html#
[2]http://truthinmedia.com/did-the-us-train-isis-rebels-to-fight-against-assad-in-syria/
[3]http://www.wral.com/sunnis-fear-revenge-attacks-in-iraqi-town-brutalized-by-is/15180342/
[4]http://www.ibtimes.com/who-fighting-isis-map-us-led-coalition-campaign-after-paris-attacks-2185295
[5]http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/12/obama-isis-losing-territory-influence-us-troops-push-south-syria/124466/
Although ISIS does not pose a credible threat to the country according to the FBI (cnn), the United States cannot ignore them. The U.S. being a world leader, it will ultimately play a large role in the downfall of the terrorist group. ISIS traces back to al-Qaeda, which the U.S. has been dealing with since before 9/11. Although the two groups no longer are affiliated due to a falling out between their leaders, the threat has not disappeared. ISIS is arguably stronger than al-Qaeda ever was, having more money than the former, as well as more influence abroad, having foreign supporters (abc).
The U.S. is well aware of the imposing threat, and has shown strengths in dealing with the issue so far. I think the most important thing we have done since the beginning of our involvement there is giving aid to the resilience forces in the nation in order to help them in fighting off the impending government and ISIS attacks. However, I do not think that certain foreign policy decisions were as smart as that. The war was wrong when we began it in the first place. I think the only thing that made it worse was taking the troops out of the area after the fact. Escalating the conflict, the U.S. invaded Iraq a number of years ago, and while the war was unpopular, removing the troops from the area increased the nation’s money supply, which meant more money for ISIS.
While many candidates hold the position that the U.S. should not get more involved than we already are (npr), and that the U.S. should remain a sanctuary for fleeing refugees, I do not think that is possible at this point, considering everything we have already done. It’s a little late to stay out of it. I think the next president should be willing to take action, but not alone. I really believe it will take a coalition of all the nations, led by world leaders like the United States, to take down the terrorism facing them all. I just think it will take a nation like ours to begin that. Though this is not an ideal solution, and yes, it would be a difficult fight and would result in casualties, I do not believe the menacing will end on its own. I think the destruction of the Islamic state should be of the utmost importance to the current and upcoming president of our country.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/us/new-york-isis-video-threat/
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-25053190
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart
A lot of what has been going on in Iraq and Syria can be confusing to many people. To start off with, In Syria, their rebel forces have been trying to overthrow their President, Bashar al Assad. The war in Syria, which is now nearing five years, has claimed the lives “of over 220,000 men, women and children”(1) The United States, along with other major countries provided help to the Syrians in the form of weapons and military support. Under President Obama, we have moved from timid sanctions, to more direct means of opposition. I think one of the major weaknesses of our US foreign policy has been that, the extremist have already began to win a way. Our country is already deeply affected, islamophobia is something that is very real and very present in the US. Another weakness has been trying to arm the rebels, which hasn’t worked out very well. On the other hand, risking American lives by sending troops out there isn’t something I would want to support either. I do agree with President Obama’s decision that we should take their current leader Assad out of power and that we should aim “for a negotiated settlement to end the war and the formation of a transitional administration.” (2) If there’s one thing that’s clear in all of this, it’s that the US is too far into this to turn around. We have committed our resources and now we have to work through to put an end to the extremist. Since the war in Syria started, “the U.S. has spent $26 million on non lethal aid to the rebels” (3) Some of the strengths of the US government has that while we have certainly become more directly active in ending the war, we haven’t gotten too deep as far as risking American lives goes but instead trying to work with the Syrian rebels to aid them.
Dealing with terrorist groups will always be a goal of the United States not only because as one of the major nations in the world, we are always targets to groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS but because as a nation that can stop such extremists groups from spreading, we do have that responsibility before it reaches nearer to us. I believe that the future president as well as currently Obama has is trying to reduce the number of civilians killed. It is easy to ignore since it all seems to be happening so far away but those hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed because of the war, were not terrorists or extremists but victims. We definitely need to keep working to once and for all end groups such as ISIS and certainly to stop them from spreading power into more nations in the Middle East. Dealing with such radical groups, certainly won’t and hasn't prove to be easy but through unity, it can be achieved.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/tweeting-names-killed-syrians_n_6848516.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23849587
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/10/04/228504494/do-you-know-what-the-u-s-government-is-up-to-in-syria
In the wake of the Paris attacks and San Bernardino shooting, most would agree that the largest or second largest issue facing the world is terrorism. The coalition of Muslim nations against ISIS is steadily growing and currently has 34 member nations (2). The UN unanimously passed a resolution supporting action against ISIS which called upon countries in the Middle East and urged them to take more action. With the overwhelming support for action against ISIS and an almost absurdly large military, most people would think the US would lead the fight against ISIS. However, the United States has a complicated relationship with Syria. Obama vocally calls out Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, for using chemical weapons on his people. Because of this the Obama administration actively supports “moderate rebels” who they are hoping will overthrow Assad’s regime. However, given how the overthrowing of regimes has gone in the past in Egypt and Libya, many are concerned about what would happen if these rebels are successful. Concerns which are not unfounded especially considering the prominence of ISIS and the intricate structure of the organization.
As opinions currently stand, the US should focus its efforts on combating ISIS rather than overthrowing Assad. Trying to both overthrow Assad and fight ISIS unnecessarily complicates the whole situation because focusing on one prevents conflict of interest with countries that do not support overthrowing Assad such as Russia (1). The nation should take advantage of the overwhelming support from other countries and at least change its strategy. Because of fear, most want action to be taken immediately. However, Obama is especially wary of this because of the results of the Iraq War and the fact that it was declared on the basis that Iraq “probably” has WMDs. Which ended up being regular large weapons that were a far cry from the nuclear weapons that Congress believed Iraq had. While apprehension and not rushing into a costly war is commendable, the Obama administration’s insistence that its current strategy will work is naive (3). According to the article, Assad’s government and military are crucial resources that the US would be unable to take advantage of if the US continues to pursue a convoluted plan to deal with both ISIS and Assad. In numerous sources have made claims that this is the case but Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have been adamant about enacting policy that does not involve engaging Assad (3). The most notable thing that the US has done regarding Syria is offer humanitarian aid. Most of this comes in the form of clean water and food especially for refugees. This past September the US even increased its aid to Syria by $419 million (4). So unfortunately the US’s policy on Syria has much room for improvement and little that it has done an exceptional job dealing with.
The main thing that Obama and the next president should do is hopefully not be horrifically xenophobic. The leader of a nation considers itself a bastion of human rights and a “great melting pot” that was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution, should not be run by someone who is not appalled by the idea of a registry or database for people who observe specific religions. Also this person should not propose only letting Christian immigrants from Syria in. He or she should be willing to welcome immigrants of all religions because this person and his or her values represent America; a country that prides itself on its diversity and has welcomed other refugees with open arms. Closing our borders and airports to Muslims welcome discrimination to Muslims who already live here despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists. Beyond that the next president or Obama should hopefully be willing to reform US Syrian policy so as the take the most practical and effective approach as make a joint effort against ISIS with Assad.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vladimir-putin-us-western-powers-zone-of-chaos-syria-iraq-libya/ (1)
http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-arabia-anti-isis-terrorism-coalition-azerbaijan-considers-joining-campaign-2225915 (2)
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/23/how-terror-paris-calls-revising-us-syria-policy (3)
https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/sep-21-2015-united-states-announces-additional-humanitarian-aid-syria-crisis (4)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home