Due 1/6/2016 - Respond to Post 6
Don't forget that over break you need to send me a paragraph of your blue hat conclusion to our thinking hats discussion. Please email it to me at maby@isd271.org. Thank you.
For this post please pick a classmate that you at least in part disagree with and respond to their post. Attack the argument not the person please. Use at least 2 pieces of evidence in your response. Please be clear about what you are responding to in their post.
Happy new year!
posted by Ms. Aby @ 4:27 PM
18 Comments:
While the issue is very complicated in Syria, I have to say I disagree with Umaimah’s opinion for the most part. Umaimah takes an isolationist viewpoint initially, which I do not agree with. I think that staying out of the situation is Syria is not the right action to take because there are so many civilians who deserve our help. The situation is harsh over there, and there are many innocent people caught in the middle; there have been over 100,000 civilian deaths caused by this war (3). If we stay out of Syria entirely, which is one of the ways Umaimah thinks the United States should handle the situation. If the United States were to stay out of Syria and do nothing about the current situation between the rebels, the dictator, and the other groups (Isis), it would create a bad situation for future situations alike to the current one. Current dictators will see that America is not willing to do anything about destructive dictatorships, and turn their dictatorship into one that is detrimental to the country and the world (1). For that reason, we must get involved at least by helping aid the innocent civilians. We could start by accepting refugees into our borders, at least for the time being, and provide them with shelter and a way to live (4). We could educate their children and adults to teach them and further help their country in the following years after the war is finished (4).
She also says that we should get a hold of Iran and get Iran to have good relations with the United States so that we can influence Syria to follow in Iran’s footsteps. I strongly disagree with this statement, I believe that even if we create good relations with Iran, Syria will not follow (2). Syria will not simply follow after another one’s actions. Syria is complex and even if Iran and the United States create good relations, there is nothing to say that Syria would follow after Iran. We cannot, and should not, expect that much from a country who is in a deadly and complicated war (1). Additionally, saying that we got Iran and Syria “under our belt”, we still have to deal with who should come to power in Syria. How are we expected to overthrow the dictator, who just agreed to side with the US and Iran, as well as getting rid of ISIS and other groups? It is a unpredictable and uncertain path which the US should not try to assume immediately (2). Instead, the US should speak with Russia to somehow come to an agreement to demolish ISIS, while negotiating the role of Assad as leader (possibly keeping him in to get rid of ISIS).
1- http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/opinion/ghitis-syria-intervention/
2- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23849587
3- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/syria-death-toll/
4- http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456633512/what-the-2016-candidates-would-do-about-isis-in-one-chart
I agree and disagree with what Scott Mitzel wrote in his last blog post. I agree that the United States should not collaborate with Assad, and that we should take him down and replace him with a new leader “to coordinate the fight against ISIS.” However, I do not agree that we would be able to get Russia to support taking down Assad, or that the United States is taking on too much of a burden in letting in Syrian refugees.
Russia has had a long relationship with Syria, and has for a long time supported them. They support Syrian president Bashar al Assad and have had long standing defense contracts which bring in money to Russia (2). Because of this, I do not think that the United States would have an easy time gaining Russia’s support in taking down Assad.
In his post, Scott argued that “US. and European countries should not be bearing as much of the burden of refugees” as they have been. European countries have seen over 170,000 Syrian refugees enter in the last year alone, so I am in total agreeance that European countries should not be bearing this heavy of a burden (3). However, the United States has only let in a little over 1,800 Syrian refugees since 2011 (1). I completely disagree with Scott when he says that the United States shouldn’t be carrying any more of a burden. In fact, I believe that we should be letting in more Syrian refugees. The Obama administration is planning on doing this by allowing 10,000 more Syrian refugees into the country this year, which will only amount to about ⅛ of the amount of world wide refugees we let into our country each year (1). Also, American safety should not be a concern as each individual refugee goes through a one, to two, to three year vetting and background check process (1). Only three of thousands and thousands of refugees that have come to America since 9/11 have been arrested for terrorism, two of whom came to America as children and were radicalized here and were not a product of the country that they came from (1). I disagree with Scott that the United States is carrying too heavy a burden with Syrian refugees when we have yet to even let that many in. For this reason, I believe that the United States should continue letting refugees in while still vetting each individual and conducting in-depth background checks.
Sources:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/19/politifact-sheet-5-questions-about-syrian-refugees/ (1)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11919242/Why-does-Russia-support-Syrias-Bashar-al-Assad.html (2)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911 (3)
I disagree with Heir Terwilliger on the grounds that waiting does not often solve the problem, it only exacerbates it. It would be like having a serious viral infection and saying, “I’ll wait it out to see if the situation improves itself”. Sure your body may cure itself, but you are still better off acting right away before there’s any chance of the situation getting any worse. The other part of Senor Terwilliger’s argument that I disagree with is his idea that progress against ISIS has been negligible. When just a single person is capable of suicide bombing and killing dozens of people, every death is a victory. Notwithstanding that the U.S. alone has killed 10,000 plus ISIS fighters (1). That number is in no way negligible. Also there is the fact that ISIS has been killing and threatening people from all over the world, including the U.S. and more recently New York (2). These acts of terrorism, as well as threats, make me feel ashamed that we have not done more. We shouldn’t allow a foe such as ISIS push us around. We need to bring the powers of this great nation to bear, and crush ISIS like the scum that they are.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/03/middleeast/isis-conflict/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/us/new-york-isis-video-threat/
While Eli did have several points in his post that I agreed with, I disagree with his solution for dealing with Assad by going to the Russians with evidence on how Assad used ISIL as a tool in order to keep power. I find it hard to believe that Russia will listen to this evidence, given that they have been such a strong ally to Syria over the past few decades. Russia is determined to keep Assad in power, even going so far as to bomb rebels at Assad’s own invitation (1). Although Russia reported that they were fighting against “all terrorists” that threaten Syria’s stability, some Western-backed groups were reported to be hit (3). If a nation is willing to bomb another’s people for standing up for their rights, it is not a nation that will readily give up that stance. While Putin and Obama have had several meetings on this issue, Russia has used its veto to block sanctions against Syria time and time again since the civil war started (2).
I understand where Eli is coming from by trying to negotiate a solution with Russia that removes its support of Assad. However, I do not believe it to be tangible and the best use of our resources. I agree that Assad should not remain in power, though I think now is not the time to act on this desire. The transitional government that would be set up after Assad is removed from power has the potential to be weak and unstable, thus making it easy for ISIL or another equally oppressive group to seize control of the region. Removing Assad does not magically make every problem go away, as stated by Samer Abboud, the Associate Professor of International Studies at the University of Arcadia (4). Unfortunately, the goals of the United States and for Russia are not practical given the current situation in Syria. The goal for the United States should be to focus on a solution that ensures the most stability for the region, something that is needed. Personally, I view that ISIL is the bigger threat and should be dealt with before the United States attempts to remove any more individuals from power. While we should exhaust every option, including diplomacy, before we commit to full military support, the negotiations with Russia could prove to be a waste of time.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/putins-russia-is-wedded-to-bashar-al-assad-syria-moscow/ (1)
http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick (2)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23849587 (3)
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/analysis-plan-save-syria-150930083231637.html (4)
While I liked that Diah laid out the plan of Obama’s statement about terrorism from 2014, I would have to say that I disagree with her for the most part. Even though I do not advocate for the loss of American lives, I believe that United States has to play some sort of role in the issues in Syria. I agree with Diah that terrorism in Syria should be the top priority, but I think that a different approach is necessary in order for the terrorism to be significantly decreased or ended. Diah said that she does not want the United States to get involved because we should not fight them until we know that we can win. I understand this point, but ISIS will only get stronger if other countries do not try to stop them. The group will not be reasoned with or stop because they are told to, so the United States cannot just step back and see how it plays out. According to a source, the coalition led by the United States has caused ISIS territory to decrease by forty percent (1). Waiting will either make matters worse or better, and I am led to believe that it will only get worse. Diah also said that the United States is being forced to work with Russia to solve the problem, but I think that it is more complicated than that. The two countries stand on completely different sides, but have to cooperate to prevent making the situation worse (2). I do think that cooperation would be beneficial, but I think that it would take the attention away from the issues in Syria, which are more important at this moment in time.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-islamicstate-idUSKBN0UJ17F20160105 (1)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/politics/us-criticizes-russia-airstrikes-syria-civilians/ (2)
I agree with Madeline when she says that the United States should put ISIS as a primary target over Syria. ISIS remains to be a much larger threat to the United States and the entire world. I would also agree that it is important that the US maintain a coalition against ISIS and other terrorist groups, but not because it would be “extremely hard to win battles on our own” but rather to mitigate blame if something goes wrong.
I disagree with her in a few regards. I cannot see a situation where the United States would be at war with Assad or Syria or to for it to be a big threat. I think there will almost always be other options for the US. I also don’t think that the US foreign policy has been weak. ISIS has lost a considerable amount of land, around 40%.[1] Granted, most of the lost land was desert, although important cities like Sinjar which was a main supply line for ISIS have been liberated. The United States involvement and their airstrikes were one of the main reasons that this was possible.[2]
[1]http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-syria-isis-islamic-state-territory-shrank-40-percent-412052
[2]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/kurdish-troops-attempt-to-retake-iraqi-city-of-sinjar-from-isis
Emma made a lot of good points in her post, however, the part on suggesting that various rebel groups join forces with the US to defeat Assad is something that seems highly unlikely. I believe that this is not likely to happen because without more help from other countries, the US on its own cannot manage to unite all the rebel groups. In order for the US to have any chance at all they need to rely on a coalition of regional countries and Russia. Emma suggested that aiding the rebels might solve part of the problem, however, in the past when the US attempted to arm and train the Syrian rebels it ended in failure. “The administration's effort to enhance the moderate Syrian opposition through training and equipment came under heavy scrutiny after the White House acknowledged the program had only succeeded in graduating a handful of recruits, despite spending nearly $500 million on the endeavor” (1). Some of the Syrian rebels that were armed by the US ended up trading in their ammunition to Nusra Front, al Qaeda's Syria wing, in exchange for safe passage. Furthermore, “some of the first class of fighters came under attack from Nusra Front in their battlefield debut” (2).
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/politics/us-syria-rebels-arms-program-suspended/ (1)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN0S31BR20151009 (2)
Although Umaimah talked about several good points in her blog post, for the most part I would have to disagree with her stance on what America’s foreign policy should be with Syria and Iraq. Umaimah took more of an isolationist view and thought it would be beneficial if America stayed out of Syrian affairs. I do see why Umaimah has this opinion, as the help that America is/ will provide Syria will be ongoing for many years. However, since the U.S. has already been actively involved in the middle east, it would be too late now to stop any aid we are providing to these countries. The world power that America has become over the past centuries means that we are obligated to help smaller, and desperate countries when in need of our help. Syria, and Iraq are two that need our assistance right now because of the turmoil they face as ISIS has control over them. Millions of Syrian refugees have fled their homes, thousands have been killed, and more of this will continue to happen (in great numbers) if the U.S. is not involved in some way (2).
I also think that is smart for America to try and stop the problem that we face with ISIS right now because it could become bigger in the future (1). If we decide to stop ISIS after years of doing nothing, they would have already gained more power and would be much more harder to stop. I also think that due to the fact that ISIS has repeatedly threatened the U.S. and attacked our ally (France), it is our duty to try and destroy ISIS so that they cannot hurt our citizens in the future (1).
http://nypost.com/2015/11/18/yes-the-isis-threat-to-america-is-very-real/ (1)
http://www.ibtimes.com/syrias-civilian-death-toll-number-isis-victims-2015-much-less-assad-regime-inflicted-2242839 (2)
Although Esther makes many good points, I simply disagree with how dangerous ISIS is and the support for the Syrian rebels she calls for. Esther claimed that ISIS is a threat the countries around the world and to America itself. ISIS’s main gal is to unite all of Islam within a single Caliphate, not at all like Al-Qaeda who actively oppose globalization and American influence. The attack in Paris was a response to French involvement and without meddling in the affairs of ISIS, they have no reason to strike against non-muslim nations (Atlantic). Esther also called for greater armament and military training for Syrian rebels. I believe that if there is any lesson to learn from mistakes made in the Middle East during the 20th century, it’s that arming groups who align with the U.S. at that present moment only assures that those weapons will be used against us. In fact, ISIS is already using weapons and resources that America had provided to “allies” in the past (Alternet). It seems to me that giving weapons to the Syrian rebels would only build the groundwork for the next extremist group to rise to power. I also believe that declaring war and sending in the United States Army is quite possibly the worst possible decision to make. First, a direct ground war would create an unthinkable number of civilian casualties and deaths because of how ideologically based ISIS is. Second, we would have to invest billions of dollars and up to decades of military presence to restore even some sense of stability, unless we wish to repeat the mistakes of Iraq all over again and create a power vacuum to allow a group nearly identical like ISIS to rise again. I simply can’t believe that Syria is even close to anything that resembles a moderate democracy and trying to help the rebels win with military aid is only setting ourselves up for failure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
http://www.alternet.org/world/how-isis-ended-stocked-american-weapons
Emma had some really great ideas about what we should be doing to try to defuse the current situation, although I don’t fully agree with all of them. Emma talked about trying to persuade members of ISIL to switch sides. I just don’t know how well that would work out. I think that could potentially be very dangerous for whoever’s job that would be. She also mentioned trying to unite the rebels. Without the help from other countries, I don’t see a way that could work out successfully. We have not had great success in even training these rebels, how are we supposed to unite them.
I think in order to actually get anything done in Syria, we need to get other countries to help. We should not be the only one influencing Syria's future. We can't do this alone and other countries need to have input and support for any attempt to work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/16979186
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria
http://www.cfr.org/syria/american-options-syria/p26226
Matthew stated in his post that ISIS does not pose a threat to us. I sincerely disagree. The San Bernardino shooting and the news trickling in about the details surrounding the event are a grim reminder of this. Although, jihadist attacks such as these are not likely to disrupt everyday life for the average American, for some, it is another justification for their prejudice. Muslims have never been looked at the same way after the tragic event on 9/11 over 14 years ago. So while ISIS does pose a much larger threat to the Mideast, it negatively affects Muslims around the world because of the increasing list of reasons to discriminate against them. The NSA heavily surveilled Muslims in particular for years after this attack (Risen). In light of the Paris attacks, three top contenders for the Republican nomination made statements that ostracized Muslims: Carson said that a Muslim shouldn’t be President; Trump proposed a Muslim registry; and Jeb suggested that the US should only let in Christian refugees from Syria. Despite or even because of these comments, Trump sits at the top of the polls. European countries and the whole world is looking at us with a critical eye because we call ourselves a country built on immigrants, and yet some of the people who hope to run this country are vocally discriminating a whole group of people (Walsh). Maybe the threats ISIS poses to this country aren’t tangible in more than a relatively small number to some, but I believe that the threat it poses in the US and whole world is to a whole group of people because of their religion.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/09/racial-profiling-reported-in-nsa-fbi-surveillance (Risen)
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/10/09/americans-europeans-baffled-by-donald-trump (Walsh)
I enjoyed reading Gina’s blog post about foreign policy in Syria and Iraq but there were a few points that I did not agree with. One thing that stood out to me in particular was Gina’s opinion that we should not send in troops to fight against ISIS. While I can understand that sentiment, upon retracing the progress the United States has made against ISIS, it is apparent that simply using airstrikes won’t be enough to combat ISIS or dismantle their state (1). In terms of human forces right now, the forces of Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah against ISIS won’t be enough (1). Syria is fighting on multiple fronts anyway because of the many factions in conflict which is distracting them from ISIS and their power has diffused to other areas. Further, the fight against ISIS is not just Syria’s battle, as ISIS is a threat to the world. That being said, soldiers from other countries could be asked to join the effort as well which would require fewer American troops and each country would have less of a burden. Another reason troops are needed in ISIS territory is because airstrikes are inefficient (2); they aren’t as precise as soldiers on the ground and ISIS needs to be dealt with more quickly and with greater versatility. Airstrikes aren’t effective against ISIS’ use of explosive devices or ground combat weaponry (2). In addition, airstrikes are a restrictive tactic because we can’t be attacking areas where ISIS forces have mixed in with civilians. While I don’t support US involvement in changing Syria’s government, I think greater involvement is necessary to fight ISIS if we are going to take them down.
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-send-ground-forces-to-eliminate-the-islamic-state/2015/11/16/685aff20-8c63-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html
(2) http://www.newsweek.com/airstrikes-might-not-be-enough-defeat-islamic-state-267181
I certainly agree with Eli that it would be ideal to join with Putin and topple Assad and ISIS. However, I do think this is an unrealistic approach. Russia has made it clear that the preserve of Bashar Al-Assad is one of their most crucial goals in the region [1]. Assad is a historic Russian ally, a friend of Iran, a huge buyer of Russian weapons, and holds Russia's last remaining naval base on the Mediterranean [2]. It seems highly unlikely that Putin will sell out one of his two allies in the Middle East in order to salvage already abysmal relations with the West. For the past twenty years Russia has been lambasted as the drunken and defeated empire. Putin is the byproduct of all the revanchism that the West has cultured in Russia. As of now, it seems unlikely that the war in Syria will end anytime soon, with Obama recently saying he sees Assad remaining in power until at least 2017 [3]. What should be done, or, at least attempted, is to broker some sort of peace between the sides of Assad and the resistance. America has certainly helped make peace before, as far back as the Russo-Japanese war America has been bringing different sides to ceasefires, and in Syria it may be the last plausible but not too terrible solution we have. Obviously it would be a diplomatic nightmare in bringing together all of the different factions in the war, but I believe that the US could garner enough support on both sides to at least have a temporary ceasefire. And, with the fighting between the rebels and Assad at least having cooled, ISIS would crumble even faster than it already is.
[1]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/11/russia-priority-survival-assad-regime-151118053352343.html
[2]http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/07/putins-russia-is-wedded-to-bashar-al-assad-syria-moscow/
[3]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7e7e7d7bbebf460dafc2ec8e997a2271/apnewsbreak-us-sees-assad-staying-syria-until-march-2017
I respectfully disagree with Esther on a few topics in her article. Esther said our foreign policy with Syria has been weak, but there has been progress. For example, as of October 31st, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said that there was no more capacity to make chemical weapons in Syria, with the US leading a lot of that charge (1). The process of dealing with the chemical weapons crisis only took two months. The US has also been leading successful airstrikes against Syrian leaders, as Esther noted beforehand: over 7,000 total (2). ISIS and Syria are both complicated issues, but we have been making small steps to try and stop them.
I also disagree with Esther’s plan to make a large army. The US should get involved in this conflict, but it should not have to become large, expensive, and drawn out like the Iraq war. Obama is headed in the right direction by consulting and working with the United Nations and formulating a plan to deal with ISIS (3). For now, he should continue airstrikes against Syria and try to gather a specialized force to deal with ISIS. A large reserve force may have to be waiting as a last resort, but specialized threats like ISIS require special forces and lots of speculation.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria (1)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve (2)
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-commits-un-action-against-isis (3)
Dealing with Syria and ISIS at the same time has certainly made the situation much more complicated for the United States however I disagree with Madeline in that it is “impossible to squash either if it is not being focused on.” While alone this might be true, the US has and continues to gain allies against ISIS. While obviously the US is a major world leader, I think it would be naive to think that we could defeat such a destructive and influential terrorist organization without the support of other world powers. Many major countries such as France, Germany, Egypt, the UAE and Jordan have already shown support (1), and since ISIS poses a threat to essentially everyone, in order to deal with both we should push for other countries collaborations and greater involvement, so that we are not the only ones pouring in resources and money, as of now “The Department of Defense has spent more than $2.7 billion—some $9 million per day—since the United States began operations against the so-called Islamic State last August.” (2)
As far as the situation in Syria, I feel that it is just as an important issue. Although it may seem as a less prominent of an issue, I don’t think there’s any practical way to leave now so it seems more strategic to carry on. Assad has and continues to abuse his own people. Although not directly linked, leaders like him provide an unstable environment for the Middle East. Assad has used chemical weapons to put down the rebels but has also killed innocent Syrians in the process. The reason there are so many refugees is they are running to escape being killed under his rule. Children and innocent civilians are being killed by chemical weapons that Assad has allowed. The use of these weapons has lead to mass destructions in Syria. “The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) looked at three of these alleged attacks and reported to the UN they have "a high degree of confidence that chlorine has been used repeatedly and systematically as a weapon"(3) I also don’t necessarily think that “if the aid against the Assad regime fails, the anti-American sentiments are just going to increase.” because most of those feelings are more deep rooted than that, so no matter what we do or don’t do anti-Americanism is something that is already enrooted into many people’s culture.
1 http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/09/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/
2 http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/us-defense-spending-war-isis
3 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34212324
For this blog post I chose to respond to Scott’s post about policies regarding Syrian refugees. While I agree with Scott’s position on taking action in the region, I disagree with his take on how the U.S. and other Western countries should address the issues raised by refugees. Scott argued that The United States and other European countries should not bear the burden of the Syrian refugees, and that this issue should be left to the surrounding Middle Eastern countries to deal with. I disagree with this approach on two counts.
First, countries in the Middle East are not equipped to deal with the recent influx of refugees, especially the increase over the past few years. These neighboring countries are in such close proximity that they have also been affected by the Syrian civil war, and have depleted resources as well. For example, there are currently 12,000 Syrian refugees stranded at the Jordan border, in dire need of food, supplies, aid, and shelter (BBC). The Jordanian government is fully aware of the problem, but does not have the resources to address it. This is just one example of how unequipped the Middle East is to deal with the refugees, and why the U.S. needs to step in.
Second, this situation is very similar to the decision faced by the U.S. during the atrocities of World War II. The turning away of Syrian refugees is exactly what ISIS wants, and only aids their causes (Huff Post). Just like during the Holocaust, if the U.S. turns away refugees, it adds fuel to fire of ISIS and its supporters, giving them ammunition to claim that the U.S. is the enemy and must be hated and destroyed. Also, leaving these refugees to founder in Syria leaves them open to ISIS recruitment and possible torture and death (Huff Post). Many people in the U.S. seem to forget that the over 4 million refugees fleeing Syria are running from the same ISIS terrorists that we fear, and we should be on their side.
(BBC) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35241394
(Huff Post) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-andreozzi/turning-away-syrian-refugees-is-exactly-what-isis-wants_b_8585084.html
http://socialistworker.org/2015/09/28/why-is-russia-backing-assad
http://abcnews.go.com/International/analyzing-russias-support-syrias-bashar-al-assad/story?id=22534530
While Scott stated that he supports the idea of not collaborating with the Assad regime to fight ISIS, I do not agree that it will work as a solution to the problems in Syria. According to him, the best possible outcome would be that the US cooperates with Russia to replace Assad with someone more friendly to both parties. However, considering that “Assad’s regime is now the only reliable ally of Russia in the region” (socialistworker), it is extremely likely that Russia would not attempt to break ties and replace him at the risk of losing prominence and influence in the Middle East. Russia’s continued support for the Bashar al-Assad regime also stems from the fear of a jihadist uprising in the country that would follow the displacement of Assad, as well as the fear of losing Central Asian dictators as allies to China due to their appearing unreliable (abcnews). For these reasons, I believe the only way to deal with the issues in Syria and the Middle East is to first and foremost focus on ridding the area of ISIS. In saying that, I think getting Assad out of power is important, too, just not right at this moment.
Scott is right in his opinion that U.S. involvement in Syria has been halfhearted and weak (3). However, I believe his solution to have the United States back the same leader as Russia is impossible. Currently, Russia is backing the Assad regime while the U.S. is backing the rebellion. In order for the two countries to side with a leader, we either need to support the Assad regime or exert massive military force in encouragement of Russia supporting the rebellion as well. However, considering the Russian power struggle with the Western countries, it is unlikely that they will budge (2). Thus I believe the solution is to back the Assad regime. Though their reign has been extremely inhumane in how they have massacred their people, I believe that our country has had a past of ruining governments in the middle east (1). The United States has no business establishing a government in a country outside of our jurisdiction. The most important objectives now are to eradicate ISIS influence in Syria with U.S. military force and to discourage escalating tensions between Russia and Western countries. If we continue to back an opposing team on the Syrian crisis as Russia, past situations in the last few years could cause the tension to escalate to warfare (2). In terms of refugees, I believe that the countries that have been foreign pillars of moral integrity should actually step up to the plate. The United Nations should move to make conditions safer for those seeking refuge from the war in Syria. I believe that the border countries in the Middle East are only slightly safer for those who need safety, that the United States and the European Union should really work to secure those people’s safety.
(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/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home