They say hindsight is 20/20, yet that still does not help answer the question on whether we should have intervened in the Syrian crisis in the summer of 2013. Even after the rise of the Islamic State and the refugee crisis that has given Europe quite a headache, the possibility of getting heavily involved in another Middle Eastern country could have possibly had infinitely worse consequences. While many see the control ISIS has over the region as a direct result of the United States refusing the intervene, there is always the possibility that some other extremist group would have risen in its place, using nationalism against the United States to recruit members. A definitive answer to whether we should have intervened or not is truly impossible to give, but I argue that our path of not getting involved during the summer of 2013 was the correct move at the time.
The past experience including Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have shown that attempting to exert our influence both militarily and politically can be turned against us. All of these situations had deeper cultural issues that we did not understand at the time. For example, Vietnam had a long and glorious tradition of repelling foreigners who sought to use the country, from the Chinese in the 1st millennia to the French in the age of imperialism. When we gave weapons and training to the Mujahideen, we ended up funding the beginning of Al Qaeda and fostered an incredible amount of anti-Western sentiment that has been used since to recruit members to organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. The Iraq War truly has a very negative image in the minds of many Americans. That is still a very fresh memory and we want to avoid it at all costs, so when we saw another tyrannical dictator being awful to his people, it seemed similar to Saddam. While some saw this as a chance to act as a police force, many wanted to avoid the possibility of another expensive war in the Middle East.
Another aspect to consider is the staunch defense of the Assad regime by Moscow. If we had intervened, Russia could easily have taken that as a violation on the sphere of influence. With a leader in Putin who is so quick to use action and assert dominance, we could have triggered military action from another great power which is certainly something we want to avoid.
While a US military presence in Syria might have helped curtail the rapid growth ISIS has experienced, our presence could have just as easily helped unite the locals against us. Using anti-Western sentiment, gathering support and spreading extremism could have been a legitimate possibility of US intervention. Settling a civil war is infinitely more complicated than an occupying force. In the Gulf War, we got Saddam out of Kuwait, but if we wanted to remove Assad then all of Assad’s followers could not just leave. Splitting two or more factions that are set in a state make the aftermath much more complicated and expensive for the US.
In conclusion, the possibilities of what could have gone wrong is just as bad as what has happened since we did not intervene. However, American boots are not on the ground in the same number that they would be and we are avoiding another expensive war in the Middle East. I see it as the right decision not to intervene.
I agree that logistically it is near impossible for the US to be successful in Syria, but do you think that the global community should accept such atrocities to occur? Even if the US was not involved directly, do you see any other way to limit the mass casualties in Syrians? Maybe you are right that the US is not fit to solve the problem, but who is?
ReplyDeleteForums such as the UN should ideally be set to fix these atrocities, yet with the problems we have on the Security Council with Russia set to veto any bill that would lead to humanitarian action, it seems unlikely any action will take place. So while they have not, and it seems like they will not take any action, I think the UN is the institution that should address these.
DeleteI agree with you Frank. The UN idealistically should be able to deal with the issues going on in Syria, However the problems that the Security Council have been going through are preventing any assistance with Syria. Yes we should be helping Syria with their mass casualties, but we do not have the power or resources to help them.ISIS is something we need to take care of, but I dont think that US intervening is going to help anything.
DeleteI agree with you that many critics who say "we should have intervened in 2013" are flawed in their thinking because they are not taking into consider the cultural circumstances and the ramifications that could have arisen had we intervened.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that now, since ISIS is involved in the whole affair, and the refugee crisis in Syria and across the globe is becoming as bad as it was 4 decades ago, it is time to step in and help the Syrians. Belated aid is better than no aid at all.
I agree with your stance on the 2013 conflict of intervention. However, now in 2015, do you hold the same stance that the US should not intervene? If not, what actions do you think should be taken?
I still believe we should not intervene as it would still complicate many things. A massive invasion of the area would only serve negatively in my opinion, but there certainly needs to be a way to stop these atrocities committed both by the Assad Regime and ISIS.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a military intervention, whether it be in 2013, today, or some time in the future, would always be an unwise move. It is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state. We must consider the following possible repercussions:
ReplyDelete1. Iran Will Take Aim at Israel - Iranian leaders have recently warned the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria and threated to retaliate against Israel in response to any military intervention.
2. Radical Groups Could Retaliate - Islamic extremist groups and militant groups such as Hezbollah could also plan retaliations against U.S. targets or allies. Iran's biggest client is Hezbollah, which has problems of its own and is already deeply involved in Syria's civil war. Iran could encourage them to be more involved
3. U.S. Accused of War Crimes - One strategy that Syria could employ to retaliate against the U.S. is to accuse them of war crimes. Syria may focus on any collateral damage, real or false, to accuse the U.S. of war crimes, to go the U.N.
4. Syria Will Try to Retaliate - Syria has already made bold threats toward the U.S. and its allies, specifically Israel, about retaliation for any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war.
I believe that a military intervention, whether it be in 2013, today, or some time in the future, would always be an unwise move. It is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state. We must consider the following possible repercussions:
ReplyDelete1. Iran Will Take Aim at Israel - Iranian leaders have recently warned the U.S. to stay out of the conflict in Syria and threated to retaliate against Israel in response to any military intervention.
2. Radical Groups Could Retaliate - Islamic extremist groups and militant groups such as Hezbollah could also plan retaliations against U.S. targets or allies. Iran's biggest client is Hezbollah, which has problems of its own and is already deeply involved in Syria's civil war. Iran could encourage them to be more involved
3. U.S. Accused of War Crimes - One strategy that Syria could employ to retaliate against the U.S. is to accuse them of war crimes. Syria may focus on any collateral damage, real or false, to accuse the U.S. of war crimes, to go the U.N.
4. Syria Will Try to Retaliate - Syria has already made bold threats toward the U.S. and its allies, specifically Israel, about retaliation for any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war.