Military Intervention in Syria

Syria’s civil war is the worst humanitarian crisis of modern time. The “Syrian Civil war Began in March of 2011, between rebel brigades and government force; economy and infrastructure is destroyed” (Library, 2016). “Divisions between secular and religious fighters, and between ethnic groups, continue to complicate the politics of the conflict” (Corps, 2016). Additionally, the Syrian civil war has taken a significant

This memo seeks to offer insight into the current emergency in Syria and how it threatens the security of US. It is hoped that it will help shape US foreign policy for Syria with the aim of protecting Americans from acts of terrorism and at the same time save the lives of Syrians.

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.

Over the last few years, the Middle Eastern nation of Syria has been the location of a brutal, nationwide conflict. Governed for the last fifteen years by the Syrian dictator, President Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian people began an armed rebellion against the oppressive regime during the spring of 2011. For four years, the bloody conflict has waged between pro-Assad forces, and various factions of rebel groups. In 2013, pro-Assad forces deployed rockets with chemical warheads into rebel controlled neighborhoods, killing many non-combatants indiscriminately, showing the world Syria’s complete lack of humanitarian considerations, and Assad’s willingness to stop at nothing to remain in power. This use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime has

Nearly 500,000 people have died in Syria due to the horrendous civil war occuring in the country. Something really needs to be done to help the innocent citizens of Syria survive and to start a new, war-free lifestyle. In my opinion, the United States should choose to continue to aid the citizens of Syria, and also try to stop the issue by using a combination of Option 1: Use the U.S. Military in Syria, and Option 2: Stop the Humanitarian Disaster. Together this plan would help the citizens of Syria, use force to stop the government, and use diplomacy to stop the government’s harm on Syria.

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.

An understanding of where the Syrian healthcare system stood before the civil war, the toll of the fighting and intentional targeting of medical personnel/infrastructure, ongoing humanitarian efforts, and America’s actions to date enable an informed evaluation of whether or not to use American military forces in a humanitarian assistance role in Syria. This context allows for an examination of the limitations of humanitarian aid, the advantages/disadvantages of plausible courses of action involving the military and the threat of mission creep. Before evaluating the merits of available courses of action the military can take to address Syria’s medical crisis, it is important to identify and understand the limitations of humanitarian assistance in general. Taylor Seybolt, Associate Professor in International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh an expert on military and humanitarian intervention, cites the following inherent limitations of humanitarian intervention: it does not provide a lasting solution to conflict; it has the potential to prolong wars; it can foster economic dependence; and it inhibits strong state development.19 When these limitations are considered in regard to Syria, military intervention for the sole purpose of providing medical humanitarian support does not make sense.

Millions of people are condemned to abuse and oppression because of the repressive policies of their own government’s, or because their governments unwillingness or inability to prevent major human rights violation. The United Nations Security Council is designed to combat this problem by providing the basis for external intervention when internal remedies are ineffective. As can be seen from the analysis of the legal framework pertaining to military intervention, it is not a matter that should be taken lightly and without a thorough consideration of the legal position, the benefits and drawbacks of intervention. However, in cases of humanitarian catastrophe, states need to be willing to intervene. It is important when considering intervention

Throughout history, many countries and states have gone to war and fought each other. These conflicts could have a laundry-list of reasons as to why they are occurring, such as natural resources, attempts to gain land, and access and occupation of highly regarded religious sites. War and battling for resources and other materials has been no new topic to us all, but there is one conflict that has blown the lid off everything that world has ever seen. This war has two names, the Syrian Civil War, and the War in Syria. The atrocities that have been witness and or inflicted upon others is absolutely unacceptable, and must be stopped.

Instead of brutally exterminating nearly three million people, West Pakistan should have sought non-violent negotiations to defuse the tense situation in East Pakistan. Also, outside powers such as the US could have discontinued their support of West Pakistan and condemned the horrific events in East Pakistan to discourage the perpetrators of the genocide. In the future, international cooperation and diplomacy must be implemented to prevent the extreme suffering of millions of people and halt the causes of genocide before murder and military intervention are necessary. Currently, one particular conflict strongly resembles the East Pakistan genocide, namely the war in Syria. The civil war in Syria has caused 60,000 deaths, mostly rebel soldiers and Sunni civilians, as the oppressive government of Bashar al-Assad continues to halt uprisings and murder citizens (Genocide Watch). In order to stop further suffering, determined international negotiations and increased understanding between religious groups will be necessary. Situations such as the events in Syria often begin with events in which a group of people are viewed as inferior and unworthy of living. In the East Pakistan genocide, these events were evident through the statements of the main perpetrators such as Yahya Khan, as they portrayed the Bengalis as lesser beings and unworthy of living. In order to prevent senseless suffering and the countless loss of lives in the future, and also to ensure a successful and harmonious society, individuals must accept the differences of others, and regard all people as equally deserving of a fulfilling

There are reports to suggest that mass casualty of chemical attack is unleashed in the suburbs of Damascus and this influences the long and contentious debate on the possible United States intervention in Syria civil war. According to reports, forces loyal to Syrian president Bashar Al Assad attacked the opposition controlling areas within the suburb with chemical weapons, where hundreds of civilians included women and children killed. The Syrian government on their defense denied these claims and accused the opposition of the attacks seen. The United Nations weapon inspectors in Syria to investigate the said claims collected and analyzed the information

Although non-militant humanitarian intervention holds many superior traits to military intervention, sometimes global powers have no alternative except to demonstrate military force. Humanitarian military intervention must only be utilized in a limited set of circumstances. First, global powers must only employ military force to combat extreme catastrophes such as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Second, global powers may use military intervention as a last resort, having exhausted all other non-militant options. Finally, interventions who meet the first two criteria must only respond to the situation with a proportionate response. In his article, “Humanitarian Intervention: Loose Ends ,” Fernando Tesón describes this

“The people want the fall of the regime, It’s your turn doctor,” read a simple message crudely spray-painted on a school wall in the southern Syrian city of Darra. Little did the teenager perpetrators know that their defiant graffiti would act as a catalyst to one of the greatest humanitarian crisis in modern history. The message was directed towards Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, who was a practicing ophthalmologist prior to his presidency. It was a cry for democracy, a challenge towards al-Assad totalitarian authority in an oppressed and unstable region. Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi, dictators of Libya and Egypt, had just watched their regime collapse in a political uprising, leaving the al-Assad administration distressed over a similar revolution. Consequently, the boys were promptly arrested, beaten, and interrogated for their message of rebellion. Relatives, neighbors, and hundreds of other discontented citizens took the streets in protest in which al-Assad’s security forces responded to by opening fire, killing several. Thus marking the beginning of the Syrian civil war. As news spread hundreds of thousands more started taking the street in protest. Al-Assad responded with an iron fist, using force to hinder the protesting. The brutal and uncompromising response was intended to coerce Syrian civilians into submission, instead the opposite occurred, civilian resolve for revolution was strengthened.

The civil war in Syria has lasted for 5 years; yet, there is little hope for a prompt end to the turmoil. It has developed into quite a unique civil war from the political perspective. Drawing in new actors who have pursued their own goals within the country and contributed to the current condition of Syria. The basis for this war and the conflicts within it have also had a large effect at the global level.

With the impact of globalisation and ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations’, one of the biggest debates in the international society today is centred around the justification of humanitarian intervention. This essay will first present the proposing and opposing arguments for humanitarian intervention as well as argue that humanitarian intervention does ultimately represent a threat to international order.