The United
States’ involvement in Syria is a highly debated topic that is dominating the news coverage and attracting attention everyday.
Political experts and average citizens alike have varying stances on our
nation’s foreign policy. Some favor military intervention, while others believe
military intervention will worsen the situation. Both sides offer valid reasons
as to why their belief is the right course of action; however, I believe that
military Intervention in Syria is necessary.
In our
discussion this past week, I thought the exercise was very productive. It allowed us to go further into the Syria debate as opposed
to just choosing a side. After going through the ideas and the pros and cons of the
situation, I stand by my opinion that we should have military support in Syria. I
understand that military action is a very big deal, but given the state of the
situation it is time for action to be taken. The past actions have been unsuccessful, and it needs
to be understood that “hoping that
diplomacy might work when it has not for nearly a year—is [not] likely to resolve an
increasingly deadly civil war (Hamid 1).” We need to learn from our past and take a
new initiative to improve the current state. There are many lives at stake, and it is
clear that the Syrian regime will continue its ways of destruction. This is a serious threat, and military action will get help
towards resolving these
issues of killing and destruction.
Military intervention has a
negative connotation in my mind, and I don’t think this should be the case. I
do believe we need boots on the ground, but not at the same scale as we had in
Iraq. In our readings, we learned that both French and Turkish ministers have
brought forth the ideas of safe zones, and I am a big proponent of this
idea. These safe zones “would
serve the purpose of protecting civilian populations, ensure the flow of humanitarian
assistance and…help establish a beachhead for Syrian rebels from which to more
effectively resist the Syrian regime (Hamid 1).” Our military intervention
would allow us to create these zones and make a positive influence on this
troubled nation.
While I believe military intervention is essential given the current
circumstances, many would oppose this belief. Some state that the idea of intervention
is unnecessary and counter productive. I agree, “strategic calculations,
national interest an geopolitical implications are paramount (Husain 1), but I
think the lack of success shows a change should be made. The military approach
of setting up safe zones, and combating ISIS in order to protect civilians is
not categorized as unnecessary in my opinion. The goal is to stop the
destruction of Assad and his regime, and our current methods of foreign policy
have been ineffective. As a super power with the ability to help a nation in
which “Bashar
al Assad’s government [is] attacking civilians with chemical weapons (Solomon
1),” I believe military intervention should be taken. A threat like this should
not be taken lightly, and it is in our best interest to intervene.
Works cited:
Economist debate: Syria: Statements
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/810#pro_statement_anchor
Ty Solomon, “Words
of Mass Destruction”
http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2013/10/words-of-mass-destruction-in-
the-syria-debate.html
The Syria Debate is one that draws many questions. I agree that we should intervene in Syria. There is a saying that I think relates to this global issue. It goes something like this: Who knows if you have to come for such a time as this? Basically, it is saying that we are here to defend our beliefs and convictions at such a time when there is war and death.
ReplyDeleteI believe that America should intervene. Our lack of intervention in the past has brought about what we have today. And if we do not intervene, then the situation will only grow worse to a point that we will live in regret. While there is still a chance to cripple ISIS, America should intervene and kill the insurgence.
However, I would even add that there should be multilateral support in combating ISIS and intervening in Syria. America should not feel the weight of the whole world on its shoulders. Other states that have the power to fight should fight back so that ISIS will be crippled and a more stable nation can be created.
I agree with Thomas that our intervention should be a multilateral effort. This would lead to a more effective effort and ultimately a more stable Syria.
DeleteI agree with Max that diplomacy in a situation like Syria is out of the question. This may have not been the case before our intervention, however today there is no option available but military intervention. We have crossed a line and cannot return, in other words this is another Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of safe zones are a good one. I think if there are places civilians can go to escape combat and the threat of drones killing them, the US will be more free to attack ISIS. I do believe the group is a serious threat and should be destroyed.
Multilateral support is also one of the most important factors in the Syria situation. The US, by acting alone, is simply furthering the isolation from other countries we already see.I think if the US can simply gain one more power as a partner in intervention, the flood of countries getting involved will start.
I thought Max's blog post about intervention was really strong in that he made a good case for why intervention is necessary. Intervention is the last option available for a state that is so close to outright destruction, and in this sense I agree with Max.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that I really liked about this post was that Max understood and discussed how military intervention seems to have a "negative connotation" and that really shouldn't be the case just because of the Iraq example. There should be enough of an intervention to help the innocent Syrian people, and to restore order to a state that is in need, which I think Max understands and discusses very well.
Another aspect that I also agree with is the idea of safe zones, which Colin also discussed above. Creating these almost refugee areas would allow innocent civilians to escape danger zones, which would make it easier and more efficient for US and other international peacekeepers to intervene and hopefully eradicate the area of ISIS and a totalitarian regime.
Overall, I think Max's blog post did a good job in not only explaining why there is a need for military intervention in Syria, but also what kind of things could be done to help the people who are suffering there. I thoroughly agree with his blog post.