There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has recently avoided interfering militarily in Syria or providing the rebels with direct support, but admitted the presence of the Syrian opposition.
However, the U.S. has been criticized for its non-intervention policy, especially with the rise in the level of violence and the spread of conflict to other areas of the country, and even to its borders with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
The Syrian Crisis began almost three years ago. Since then, the killings, the bombings and the fleeing haven’t stopped. Obama’s administration was blamed for letting the Assad regime, which is an Alawite minority, tyrannize its Sunni people who are a majority, for all this time, and for allowing the radical jihadist power, a part of the opposition, to benefit from the uprising.
At the same time, there are many important domestic political concerns that justify Obama’s non-interventionist policy. But the use of chemical weapons, an issue President Obama tackled in his State of the Union address, impelled the U.S. government to take a serious position against the regime supported by both Russia and Iran.
Unlike the other Arab spring revolutions, such as in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, the Syrian Civil War takes a place of its own in today’s political world. It brought back the Cold War ghosts, and reasserted the tension between the U.S. and Russia, because a big part of the American policy in Syria is a result of getting in a direct confrontation between the two strong powers.
U.S. Policy in Syria
On one hand, the U.S. government needs to act in Syria to avoid th...
... middle of paper ...
...ential no-fly zones along the borders with its NATO allies.
The Syrian fate in the next few months and maybe years will be in the hands of big powers like U.S. and Russia that have yet to decide on a peaceful attempt that can, not end the war, but give the Syrian people who primarily need extensive humanitarian and economic assistance, a ray of hope, “as the longer battle begins to build a viable and democratic post-Assad Syria at peace with the region and the world.” (Boot, 2012)
Works Cited
Boot, M. F. (2012, December). What Should U.S. Policy Be in Syria? Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/syria/should-us-policy-syria/p29638
Walt, S. M. (2014, February 18). Is the United States Playing "Small Ball"? Retrieved from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/18/is_the_united_states_playing_small_ball_foreign_policy
The war in Syria has been going on for six years now, killing more than a quarter million people and forcing over 10 million people to leave their homes. It has started with a peaceful protest and is now a full on genocide of people dying. The protest was for the arrest and torturing of Syrian teens for the graffiti of their anti government on a wall. When people form other people that were tired of the government saw this, they wanted their president to make major reforms of their democracy. He didn't like that, so he responded with a violent reaction. He killed thousands of Syrians and more from starvation. As the war went on, more people came in to play a role in the war. These people were from many different places. It has gotten so bad that politicians don't know what to do to stop it.
Saddam’s government collapse in the US impacted the country of Iraq by creating a democratic government where the citizens have rights. Two years earlier Afghanistan was invaded by the us because their government was believed to be an aid to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Later the US defeated Afghanistan’s government, the Taliban and established a democratic government like in Iraq today. We can infer that the Middle East has complicated problem going on with the region, that not even the u.s. president can figure out. (Doc C) all in all the US has impacted the region of the Middle East and build a strong relationship with it over the past
Page, S., & Kelly, J. (2013, September 9). Uphill battle for Obama: Where Congress stands on Syria. Retrieved March 20, 2014
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
Affirmative Case Introduction- "We must use every tool of diplomacy and law we have available, while maintaining both the capacity and the resolve to defend freedom. We must have the vision to explore new avenues when familiar ones seem closed. And we must go forward with a will as great as our goal – to build a practical peace that will endure through the remaining years of this century and far into the next.” Because I believe so strongly in the words of U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when she spoke at the Stimson Center Event, June 10, 1998, that I ask you to affirm today’s resolution, “Resolved: The use of economic sanctions to achieve U.S. Foreign Policy goals is moral.
The article What Does America Stand For? written by Ian Bremmer is about the past and present of United States foreign policy. Throughout the article, Bremmer touches on key aspects of America’s role in other countries affairs. Initially, he starts out talking about the role Obama has played on behalf of the United States and its affairs in other countries. Bremmer believes that Obama’s “deeds suggest that he is not acting in the world so much as reacting to crises as they appear”(pg. 3) and that many of the world events that have happened in the past four years has caught Obama and the United States off guard. Bremmer continues to talk about how this just did not happen with Obama, it has happened in presidencies before his own. Bill Clinton and
The role of the United States is very important, and the United States has quite an image to keep up. Sometimes the United States does not know what the right decision is, and until they try one of there choices they will not know what the right or wrong decision is. It is not the United States responsibility to make peace in a country at civil war.
Turkish-Syrian relations have almost always been soured and hostile in some fashion, dating back as early as the 1500’s. With a perpetual tit-for-tat policy and retaliation method that has been in effect between the two nations, it wasn’t until around 2003 or so in which Turkish relations to Syria had turned mostly friendly in response to the United States’ invasion of Iraq and Assad growing concerned over Syria being invaded as well. To gain more allies and help deter against this, Assad looked to Turkey for support, who was not only happy to better their ties with Syria, but was also in strong disagreement with the United States’ decision to invade Iraq as well. That is until the last five years in which the acting government in Syria has become increasingly more violent and hostile to it’s own people; essentially forcing the Turkish government to reject the growing friendly ties in the name of democracy. The geographic placement of Turkey in relation to the Middle-East and Europe, and particularly Syria, puts the country as a whole in a precarious situation from multiple powerful influences, such as NATO, the EU as well as the UN, and on the inverse, major Islamic figures and traditions held in the region. Because of this, Turkish history has been shaped and formed from the two major influences pulling on the country in very contrasting ways: The west, and the benefits of modernity and non-secularism in the state, and the East, and the fundamental religious beliefs of many who reside there who do not wish to break tradition or stray from their fundamental beliefs. Today is no different, although Turkey is increasingly leaning to the western state of mind and politics as a result of the shaky rela...
SUMMARY: The Syrian Civil War between the Syrian government, and the insurgents, as well as the Free Syrian Army has been escalating since early 2011. The United States, and our allies have faced difficulty in sending aid to Syria, and continue to deal with obstacles in sending even basic medications to Syrian civilians. However, the United States and its allies have also contributed to the lack of organization and the disparity in Syria by sending aid and artillery to individuals based only on political connection, and ignoring organization, local alliances, and without a true understanding of the reality of the Syrian localities to best protect the Syrian protestors. The question addressed in this memo will be defining the viable options to be pursued in Syria, how to pursue them, and assessing the most beneficial path of least resistance when offering aid, funds, and artillery to specific groups in the country. The recommendation will be that although the best alternative action item would be to choose a Syrian group with the least oppositional values comparative to the United States to fund, supply with arms, and train; that the United States should do nothing for the time being. Given the physical and financial risk involved with the Syrian Civil War, it would be prudent for the United States to simply observe how the war progresses over the next several months, as well as complete some research to truly understand the state of affairs in local areas of Syria to determine the extent to which the United States could identify a group to provide aid to, as well as the extent to which the United States involvement would be within Syria.
An attack on the Syrian state would fall within the boundaries of the international concept of the responsibility to protect. The crisis in Syria has escalated by protests in March 2011 calling for the release of all political prisoners. National security forces responded to widespread peaceful demonstrations with the use of brutal violence. The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to stop attacks and allow for implementation of the reforms requested by the demonstrators. By July 2011, firsthand accounts emerged from witnesses, victims, and the media that government forces had subjected innocent civilians to detention, torture, and the use of heavy weaponry. The Syrian people were also subjected to the Shabiha, a largely armed state sponsored militia fighting with security forces. Al-Assad continually denied responsibility to these crimes and placed blame on the armed groups and terrorists for these actions.
Since March 2011, Syria had no longer experienced a situation called peace and harmony. Syrian’s daily life is filled with the events of killing, bombing and torturing of their brothers and sisters. This unresolved conflict began with a revolution to against the government for brook the promise to have betterment in political system (citation). However the government had responded by harsh action. Starting from this point, Syria had slide into Civil War. Based on the brief description about situation in Syria, I strongly believe that the best International Relation theory to describe this situation is constructivism. This is because the Civil War in Syria is socially constructed by some factors which will be discussed deeply in the next paragraph. In this essay, I will emphasize on the two factors that lead to Syria Civil War which are identity conflict in a state and the absence of shared norms of sovereignty; and provide a solution from constructivism perspective which is diplomacy negotiation and limitation to it.
The Syrian Civil War is a good example of world leaders playing by the rules of realism. The civil war began in March of 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, and by July of 2012 17,000 have died and another 170,000 fled the country (Almond). The United Nations Security Council in February of 2012 had tried t...
As you are aware, there have been many concerns with Syria. The issue involves Assad, President of Syria, and ISIS, a Syrian rebel group. This problem is advancing and developing into an international dilemma as the U.S we have to take control. Assad killed over 1,400 people, including children, with maybe the use of chemical weapons within the countries. This may or may not be reliable information because there are investigations in order to prove the theory. The problem with ISIS is that they have beheaded and slaughtered many innocent people to prove a point.
Lawson, Fred H. "Syria." Politics & society in the contemporary Middle East. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010. 411 - 434. Print.
The pro-Israel intervention represented the US foreign policy reaction when the violation to regional stability was committed by Israel. The cases discussed above were evaluated against the US reaction to Israel’s regional behaviour; in terms of whether the Israeli behaviour served or hampered US interest in maintaining regional stability and whether or not the US opposed Israel when it acted in ways that the United States deemed undesirable. It was concluded that, as a general rule, Washington was ready to intervene to address any violation to the status quo in the Middle East system except when this violation was committed by its regional surrogate. Israel had contributed directly in destabilizing the Middle East system (pushing the system out of its equilibrium point) in several cases, four of which have been discussed above. These crises, in spite of their negative effect on regional stability, witnessed minimal US reaction.