Syrian Civil War: Donald Trump's Strike Against Syria

With a death toll in the hundred of thousands, and millions displaced, the Syrian civil war has become a violent mark on the world’s history. What started as a peaceful protest has spread over five years, has evolved into a war with a tyrannical government, a clashing rebellion, and terrorism fighting either side. But what is it that really fuels the immense amount of violence? It can be narrowed down to four groups that are obvious. The government and the rebels are the forerunners in violence in the war, sure, but they aren’t the only ones. There are the terrorist groups, with skewed views to support the destruction of people and things around them, and in itself the stark difference of the religions and ethnicities of Syria. Who causes

65). Syrian’s that are stuck in refugee camps or still living in Syria are fighting for the freedom from authority that they did not agree to, the war has killed over 220,000 people and displaced half of the country’s population (GIlsinan, 2015). The states thus far have responded to the many facets of this crisis with very realist approaches via military action. Realists will tend to prioritize power and place it above and separate from morality and ideology, basing their arguments on tradition and focusing on the power to be gained or lost in the situation (Goldstien, 56). Are force and fraud the most reasonable types of action (Suth, Elias 2007), where is the morality; “More than a third of Americans want to ban Muslims from entering the United states” (Hayoun 2015, The independent). It appears that realism is winning the war against idealism in the US - realism is pessimistic and cynical towards life and human nature, thus there is no hope for a good end of human kind (Najob, Hamed, Gandomikal 2015). One possible motivation of the American people to adopt this very pessimistic and realist way of looking at the crisis and the Muslim population as a whole, is they might assume that liberalist approaches, with its theories in moral reasoning, may

In recent discussions of President Trump's attack on Syria, a controversial concern is how our checks and balances have diminished over the years. On the one hand, some argue that Trump broke international law when he launched the missiles onto Syria. From this perspective, one would think that this has given the opportunity to other countries that despise the U.S. to attack them. On the other hand, others argue that Trump made the right move by attacking and they support his decision. Supporters of this view believe that Assad and ISIS need to be removed from power. Other countries, such as China, that supported Trump's decision felt that they will not tolerate the spread of chemical attacks. In sum, the issue is whether Trumps' attack will cause WWIII with other countries continuing to back him up, which will dismiss the first claim. Or will this attack backfire and Trump be persecuted for breaking international law while causing other countries to want to go to war with the U.S

With the Syrian conflict starting as a civil war and then escalating into a conflict amongst many other countries I can now understand the how this escalation happened. Within our simulation I could try to compare the outside forces looking inward into a country. As a comparison Krussia would be our Syria, outside forces were sanctioning them to relinquish their terrorists and almost freezing them out of many of our country trades. This had happened to Syria on May 18, 2011 with the US imposing against Syria with the US Treasury Department saying this, “...any property in the United States or in the possession or control of US persons in which the individuals listed in the Annex have an interest is blocked, and US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them…” after this it was a domino effect; the European Union banned the import of Syrian oil and formed a sanction against Syrian government because of their mistreatment of the people. From our simulation and our class lecture this seems to be a credible commitment problem within the syrian government to its people. With many outside sources trying to form a collective action solution for Syria and with the Syrian people wanting their basic Human Rights it was a double edge sword for the government. Recently there has been action taken against Syria though with a warning to evacuate portions of syria surrounding a government airforce base which supposedly were the warships that had attacked the city of Khan Sheikhoun and had chemical weapons loaded onto warplanes. This statement from BBC after the chemical bombing says, “Activists and witnesses say warplanes attacked Khan Sheikhoun, about 50km (30 miles) south of the city of Idlib, early on Tuesday [April 4], when many people were asleep…The explosion sent a yellow

The war in Syria has resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties, as well as the displacement, of just as many refugees who have fled the country. The regime of Bashar Al-Assad, reportedly deployed chemical agents against innocent Syrian people. President Obama went on record, saying that Assad should not cross the “thin red line” (Filkins, 2013). Many interpret this statement from the president to be a threat of war against Syria. Some are actually arguing the ethics of war in this case. During a panel discussion between theologians and policy makers on what makes for a “Just war”, Stanley Hauerwas, Professor emeritus of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School explained that the idea of a “Just war” consists of a discourse which requires thorough diplomatic argument that exhausts all nonviolent efforts before military intervention can ever be considered (Shimron, 2013).

The rebel groups that are fighting the government in Syria have also displayed savage behavior in their fight with the Syrian regime and the Islamic State. While the rebels are in theory fighting an oppressive government in order to free the Syrian people, the “rebels have also shelled civilian areas” (Goldman). The rebels, like the Syrian government, have stopped fighting for the common Syrian person and are instead fighting for power no matter the cost. Without any effective government holding them accountable the Syrian rebels entered into the state of nature and slowly became savage and began causing almost as much harm to the Syrian hoi polloi as the government. Without an effective government enforcing laws and guiding the Syrian people they have fallen victim to the state of nature theory and are proving the belief of Thomas Hobbes that “during the time men live without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in a condition called war” (Pojman 5). Even rebel groups once supported by the United States “have committed atrocities ranging from abductions and torture to summary killings” (Blake). What originally started as a fight for freedom has quickly became a primitive and violent clash for dominance between rebel groups and the Syrian regime. The rebels actions have shown

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

The Syrian situation has been viewed using the just war theory lens by different scholars who have offered contrasting analysis. In what started as pro-democracy protests following the Arab spring uprisings in 2011, the ensuing unrest escalated to a civil war between government forces and rebel forces with the UN reporting that 90000 had been killed as of June 2013 and 250000 as of 2015 (Rodgers, 2016). The question raised is whether the intended United States military intervention is justified or not from a just war theory perspective. According to William Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings institution, the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention failure to which he thinks the war will continue indefinitely. Based on the principle of just war, Galston observes that the proposed intervention would be protecting further killings of innocent human life pointing out it might be the last resort (Shimron, 2013). Another scholar, Rabbi Broyde, a professor of law, concurs with Galston’s observations that an

It’s the middle of the night, and the moon is shining at full force, casting a soft glow upon the battle ground that lies beneath. The eerie calm of the midnight air is pierced with the rattle of a machine gun off in the distance. Minutes later, an MIG cannon rumbles the earth, sending a shaking building to tumble to its death. Screams can be heard amidst the chaos. No, this isn’t the setting of a bad dream, or even the plot of a scene depicting the throws of war. Terror, violence, and bloodshed, mark the reality of the civil war in Syria, which some claim is the biggest humanitarian crisis since World War II. It seems like everyone has an opinion regarding what strides should be taken to resolve the issue, but no one answer can solve the problem at hand. The conflict in Syria has spiraled completely out of control, and even the most prominent policy makers in America grapple with the issue of how to put an end to the violence.

“As far as I am concerned, Syria has not changed”, proposes Bashar Al Assad, the current president of Syria and the commander of the Syrian armed forces, on July 17, 2014 (“Syrian Civil War” 3). In the opinion of Bashar al-Assad, Syria has not changed since the Syrian Civil War, a war fought between the Syrian government and the Free Syrian Army for human rights and political power, began. However, the Syrian Civil War has gone on for over five dreadful years and the death toll has grown to over 500,000 (“Syrian Civil War” 1). The deaths of 500,000 people and the injuries of over 2,000,000 are clearly significant, and there has definitely been a change to the country of Syria ever since the war began. The Syrian rebels’ goal is to increase

Inspired by the Arab Spring, revolution was on the horizon in Syria. Fed up with the government control, rebels have rallied against the government. In nearly five years of armed conflict the civil war in Syria has claimed nearly 470,000 lives: 400,000 through direct violence and an additional 70,000 as an indirect result of the war. A governmental regime which uses terrorists tactics is one that should be looked at as a threat. The president of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad, has carried out a siege against his own civilians in Aleppo trapping them from the rest of the world. Depriving nearly 250,000 people of food, water, and supplies while bombing them on a daily basis is simply inhumane (UN News Centre). The government has gone to the point of using chemical weapons on their own civilians, killing many men, women, and children. The bloodbath is more than just those who support the Ba’ath Party Government and those who want a revolution, but includes many groups and world powers. Although they

On August of 2014, Obama announced to the American people that he is ready to conduct airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Obama’s goal is to degrade and destroy the terrorist group and he wants to conduct a long and extensive campaign against the group. Legitimate fears still exist about supplying rebels with weapons or placing boots on the ground, which is why airstrikes have been suggested. Jane Hardman, President of the Woodrow Wilson Center-a world renowned think tank, believes that it is possible for Obama to order these strikes without being afraid of helping the Assad regime since ISIS was on ungoverned territory (Lander and Weisman). But the U.S. is not the only country involved. Other countries, like Turkey, have also been affected

Chemical weapons are highly volatile form of killing human beings that has been used by the Syrian government. Many are asking the US government to intervene and stop them from using this outrageous form of destruction. Recently the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its civilian population to try and combat rebels fighting against the Assad regime (Chemical weapons). Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction that are considered a crime against humanity and war crimes as the use of them has been banned throughout the world (Chemical weapons). The use of chemical weapons warrants intervention because without the US or other countries stopping rogue nations who will prevent them from using chemical weapons as means to dominate

The Syrian Civil War has become now an international conflict between USA and its allied groups and Russia and its allied groups. USA and its allied groups support free Syrian army who are fighting against Syrian Government Bashar Al Asad. On the other hand. Russia support Syrian Government Bashar Al Asad. The two super power(USA and Russia) are engaging Syria war for their own benefit. Russia supports Syrian Government for remaining historical relation between Russia and Syria. By remaining good relations with Syrian Government Russia can control Middle East by using Syrian sea port Turtas and Russia economically will be beneficiated. On the other hand USA is involving Syrian war for supporting its Middle East allied groups(Saudi Arab, turkey, Israel) who are the neighboring country of Syria and they are supporting free Syrian army. The other causes of USA behind involving Syria war are to continue oil business and weapon business well.

A military action is appropriate only if it is the last resort. The UN and regional states have condemned Syria’s actions. Many efforts have been made from the United Nations in order to put an end to the atrocities and the violations of Human Right that take place in Syria but none of them have brought the desired outcome. In April 2012, Kofi Annan, as a special envoy, reported that the Assad government had agreed to a six-point peace plan, which laid out a framework for a ceasefire that does not result in the departure of Assad from power. Syria failed to achieve almost every aspect of this peace plan and the United Nations send 300 ceasefire observers to the country. In June the United Nations terminated its observer operation because of the accelerating violence. In February 2012, the United Nations General Assembly voted a resolution condemning the Presidents Assad’s reaction to the uprising, but China and Russia, prevented all energies for stronger Security Council action. There are numerous alternatives that could be