Connor
Handzo
GVPT
200
Professor
Shirk
Blog Post 2
Recently there has been much debate
over what course of action the United States should take against ISIS and
Syria. There are many different arguments on each side as to what to do. Some
people feel that we should get fully engaged in the conflict, others feel that
we should only be somewhat engaged and there are those who feel that we should
not engage ourselves at all.
Many people and groups feel that the
United States needs to fully engage itself in the conflict with ISIS and the
Syrian government. As of now, the United States government is performing
airstrikes in the region, but there are groups that feel this is not nearly
enough involvement. There are those that believe that the United States should not
only continue airstrikes, but that it should also deploy troops and physically
have boot on the ground in Syria. These people want the United States
government to fully commit troops, equipment and resources to this conflict. They
feel that this sort of action is the only viable way to stop ISIS from growing
and to contain it and eventually destroy ISIS. Not only do they want to stay
involved until ISIS and the Syrian government are toppled, but they want to
stay in the area and commit to nation building. Each of these tasks are
monumental though and could easily plunge the United States into numerous years
of war.
Then there are those who believe
that the United States should get involved in this conflict, but not get so
involved as to commit itself to war. That is, some people feel that the United
States should stop the airstrikes, because they feel that the strikes are
ineffective. They also think that the United States should set up neutral zones
in order to protect humanitarian rights, and should not engage in combat unless
provoked or attacked first. This is in order to help refugees and other people
who are fleeing the war, among other humanitarian practices while staying out
of the fighting aspect of the war. Lastly, these people feel that in this
approach, the United States government should not favor either side, ISIS or
the Syrian government, in the conflict.
Another group that is vocal about
this conflict is the group that believes wholeheartedly that the United States should
not get involved in this conflict. These people use past examples, such as
Iraq, as their support as to why the United States should not get involved.
That is, based on what happened with Iraq, it is their belief that there is no
evidence to support the idea that the United States would be successful in
Syria. Moreover, they feel that nation building does not tend to work because
of how the two groups involved in the fighting feel towards each other. Because
of the combatants’ beliefs and such, they feel that fighting would continue
even after the United States were to leave after its time spent nation
building. So, because of these reasons this group vocalizes that there is
absolutely no reason to risk American lives, equipment, and resources if in the
end not a whole lot would be different.
So based on the arguments and
evidence from the three varying sides, it is my belief that the United States
should pull out of Syria and not get involved. If we even do manage to defeat
ISIS and topple the corrupt Syrian government, which would incur an immense
cost on us in lives and resources, then we would engage in nation building.
However, the region around Syria is unstable and infant democracies are weak so
there is no reason to believe that after all of our efforts the new government
would survive. Furthermore, the people of Syria might not even want a democracy
and could potentially end up resenting us for installing one. Therefore, the
United States should pull out of Syria and not get involved any further.
Connor,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe the United States could still maintain a presence but choose not to institute a democracy? I think pulling out troops will only cause Syria to implode There is also the question of humanitarian rights. I agree that the cost might be great, but if we choose to back out now, the world would see us as weak after we gathered other nations to join our efforts of eliminating ISIS. There is also the matter of our own national security. Allowing ISIS to grow within Syria could lead to attacks on the US in the future, in which case we will be forced to go to war then. I believe we have the opportunity to control the situation and limit ISIS's growth. If we can agree to let the Syrian people restructure their own government after we intervene, I believe there is great incentive for the US to remain a presence in Syria.
In reference to your explanation of how to US should involve itself in the crisis but not involve itself too much, you mention that “in this approach, the United States government should not favor either side, ISIS or the Syrian government, in the conflict.” Do you think this approach is realistic? Is it possible for the US to not involve itself “too much?” If the US involves itself, is it possible for it to actually do so without bias towards either party? If the US is so concerned about becoming overly involved in the situation, might it be better for it not to intervene? Most importantly, who decides when the US has become too involved? How? And, who decides if the US is acting impartially? How?
ReplyDeleteVishal, I believe that intervening in the situation is way to costly for us; that the lives and resources we were to invest would not be well spent. As of now, ISIS is not a big threat to the United States and if the time were to come when it seriously threatens our security, then of course we should involve ourselves but not until then.
ReplyDeleteOlivia, in that approach I said the U.S. should set up humanitarian and refugee camps and only to provide a safe zone to those who come to these camps. In this way, we are not interacting with either ISIS or Syria directly and that is how we involve ourselves, but not too much.
Connor, I disagree. I think it would be a mistake for the US government to be reactive instead of proactive in regards to unstable and unpredictable situations like the current one. ISIS is a significant threat. It has both rapidly growing manpower and economic power and outreach. I think it is extremely unlikely that this situation could be resolved without the involvement of several more powerful nations. Additionally, do you think that foreign aid to failed states like Syria could be more effective if the US and other nations changed or adapted their nation building strategy? Do you think that if they US were to focus on stability instead of democracy that a US-aided government in Syria could be more successful?
ReplyDeleteI think you do a good job presenting all sides of the argument but I think you failed to adequately represent a rebuttal for your stance. While there is no clear cut answer, there is also a big possibility that there would be considerable public backlash for pulling out. We've already spent millions of dollars in Syria with very little effect. I would suggest that we change tactics because our current plan obviously isn't good but if we pulled out it would be with little result. The best solution I believe would to appeal more to international backup and support, perhaps even using the UN to create a peacekeeping mission in Syria.
ReplyDelete