Argument Essay: President Trump And The Syrian Civil War

President Obama attempts to gain the support of the Conservative population through a more logical approach, detailing the potential consequences of his actions or lack thereof to our nation 's credibility. He begins his appeal to the Right with a warning that “[dictators] depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory”. This means that if were to do nothing, as Assad hopes, he will likely attack more and commit more war crimes. With more war crimes, President Obama points out that it “is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security”. Because American conservatives are traditionally more isolationist, they are less likely to agree with President Obama 's plea to intervene. Though, he argues if we let Assad continue, we will likely be threatening our own safety. The reason it would threaten our national safety, President Obama says, is that “as the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them”. The

Therefore, by creating linkages in the minds of the American people between the all-too-real tragedy of September 11 and a supposed Iraqi threat, the Bush administration justified bringing Iraq into its War on Terror. These linkages lent a sense of immediacy and vindication to the War on Iraq, which would have otherwise been nearly impossible to engender.

President Obama’s tactics in Syria is much different than President’s Bush’s tactics in Iraq. In August 2013, Obama seeked Congress approval on military action in Syria after the Syrian government used chemical attacks that killed over a thousand innocent civilians. On September 11, 2013, military action was placed on hold

Jamie Fly, the Former Director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council, argues that the situation in Syria more convincingly warrants American intervention than the situation in Libya; however, government officials and the American public remain largely apprehensive to make a move in Syria like they did in Libya. Fly cites Syria’s possession of chemical weapons, their program to covertly secure supplies to nuclear weapons, and their harboring of radical groups that posed a threat to the United States as warrants for American involvement in the Syrian Civil War (Fly). Fly also argues that the U.S. and its allies should establish protected zones around threatened cities — although he neglects to describe what he means by that — and “seriously consider arming the opposition” (Fly). Similar to the previous argument made by Abdulhamid, Fly argues that the United States has an obligation to the Syrian people to intervene in the name of human

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.

The people in syria are being murdered by their own government for opposing the president's views and they’ve also been killed for having a religion the government does not agree with and an ethnicity they do not like. This is in violation of the International Human Right Declaration because it i stripping the syrians completely from their human rights. Article 2 everyone is entitled to their own rights set forth by the declaration without discrimination of

The United States’ involvement in the Syrian Civil War and its willingness to accept Syrian refugees is subject to both domestic and foreign contention. Americans have become increasingly critical of the invasion of Iraq following the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and as a result, many are apprehensive in supporting another intervention in a Middle Eastern country during the middle of a violent uprising. The use of airstrikes keeps costs minimal while still dealing significant damage to Assad and anti-American militant groups in the form of destroyed infrastructure and supplies. Airstrikes also keep American troops off the ground, further minimizing costs and preventing immense loss of life. Providing arms to pro-American,

In Syria, the airstrikes, ostensibly aimed against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), are being carried out without any authorization from either the United Nations or the government in Damascus, making them acts of aggression and war crimes.

When Bill Keller wrote his article in May of 2013, he said “For starters, President Obama articulates — as he has not done — how the disintegration of Syria represents a serious danger to America’s interests and ideals.” In this statement, Keller laid out the bare minimum level of action he deemed appropriate for the Obama administration to take against Syria. As a liberal internationalist hawk, the sentiment prior to the chemical attack in Ghouta was that this would have served as the absolute most extreme compromise that they would accept. However, following the attack in Ghouta, the most extreme compromise that liberal internationalists could live with was nothing less than an initiative to arm the Syrian rebels fighting to resist Assad’s regime. Though this compromise might satiate some of the hawkish liberal internationalists,

Currently, Trump has decided to follow in Obama’s footsteps and draw a “red line” (Bertrand, 2017). Obama, however failed his promise of making a “red line” within Syria and it cost the US greatly (Bertrand, 2017). If the US had decided to intervene then the outcome of the Syria war could have resulted differently. The White House has already made a statement promising that Assad, the Syrian President, would “pay a heavy price” if he were to carry out on his plans to use chemical weapons on civilians (Bertrand, 2017). I believe that in this scenario Trump is making the right move. If Assad were to go through with using the chemical weapons, then the US would be able to target him through interference. If the US targeted Assad then that might be able to put an end to his cruelty towards the civilians. In this case Obama basically played as a trial. He said that the use of his “red line” would happen when it came to the chemical war in Syria, and then he did not go through with it. Since this came at a great cost against the US, Trump has been able to go with Obama’s original plan and he is not afraid to go through with it. Hopefully Trump’s actions will take place if Assad does what he plans and the US would be able to help

Despite the clear practical, and moral benefits of Responsibility to Protect mandated humanitarian intervention, some critics have vociferously argued against intervention, often, with political motives. Since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the United Nations have tried to adopt a resolution that would refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court who would commission the investigation of the horrific war crimes being committed in the country. However, due to vetoes from the Chinese and the Russian governments, the United Nations has been unable to sanction the investigation of war crimes in Syria, allowing for a culture of impunity to be fostered, and for a violation of the R2P doctrine to be legitimized. The rationale for the Russian government’s veto is both a political and a strategic one. The Russian government is strongly allied with that of Bashar Al-Assad, having frequently supplied it with military assistance both before and during the civil war. Additionally, Vladmir Putin, Russia’s president, sees many parallels between its style of governance and that of Assad’s, fearing that allowing for international intervention in Syria, could open its own borders up to scrutiny. Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative on the United Nations Security Council, also argues that these vetoes are important to maintain the UN’s integrity as a neutral organization, fearing that any intervention, even when it falls in line with the R2P

Antigovernment movements broke out in early 2011 with the Arab Spring. The Syrian government has used brute force, even illegal chemical weapons, to suppress protests. Armed resistance to the regime arose in the summer as soldiers defected from Assad and established the Free Syrian Army consequently. The main belligerents consist of the Syrian Army, the Syrian National Defense Force, Shabiha, Hezbollah, and Iran, whilst the opposing parties consist of Syrian National Council, Syrian National Coalition, Islamic Front, Mujahideen, Al-Nusra, Syrian Kurds, and Islamic State of Iraq (ISIL) and the Levant. International reactions in regards to the Syrian Civil War vary from support of al-Assad’s regime to advocating the government dissolve. Currently, the Assad regime controls Damascus, and most of the provincial capitals in the West of Syria, whilst the rebellion has large swathes of land to the East and North. The Syrian Civil War has evoked divided opinion from international leaders, with Western powers such as the United States, supporting the rebels, whilst superpowers Russia and China support Assad’s regime. As a result, a contemporary proxy war has emerged. This paper will examine the different perspectives global leaders have on the Syrian Civil War, and consequently their actions towards the conflict.

The Arab League, United States, European Union, Arab States of the Persian Gulf, and other countries condemned the use of violence against the protesters. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership because of the government's response to the crisis, but granted the Syrian National Coalition, Syria's seat on 6 March 2013. The Arab League also sent an observer mission in December 2011, as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution of the crisis.

The Syrian Arab Republic is an Arab country in Western Asia, bordering Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea to the West, Turkey to the North, Iraq to the East, Jordan to the South, and Israel to the Southwest. In March 2011, the Syria conflict has begun due to various reasons and is still going on today. This outbreak is one of the key factors which resulted the Arab Spring (Arab Uprising). Arab Spring refers to the democratic uprisings that arose independently and spread across the Arab world in 2011. The protest originated in Tunisia in December 2010 and quickly took hold in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. In these countries, the citizens intiatied the protests as the ruling families have been

Seventy-two years ago, in 1945, the world said goodbye to another world war, and welcomed the “world arena,” with its charter, beliefs and Member States with open arms. The foundation of the United Nations in 1945 changed the world. How so? Think about it: It has been seventy-two years since the world’s last world war, and this is thanks to the “world arena.” Yes, it is evident that today wars are still going on around the world, such as the current Syrian Civil War. It can be argued that war can be prevented; however, it cannot be erased from humanity’s history. Nevertheless, former President John F. Kennedy once said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind” (John F. Kennedy Quotes 1). This is true. For example, the current Syrian Civil War is currently considered the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. In fact, according to Mercy Corps, more than 11 million people have been killed or forced to flee Syria. In addition, necessities such as food and medical care are scarce, and according to the U.N., $4.6 billion is needed to assist Syria in this urgent time of need; however, only $1.7 billion has been received (“Quick facts: What you need to know about the Syria crisis 1”). Now, the key question is as follows: What type of world do we want to leave for future generations? Is it a world that promotes war? Or Is it a world that promotes peace, stability, and economic growth for all nations? As you read this reflection paper, keep these questions