Why The United States Become Involved In The Syrian Civil War

Currently, the world is in disagreement over tensions in the Middle East. A divided country of the Syrian government and rebels has caused horrific acts. Acts that the president of the United States deemed necessary for military retaliation. That has sparked the debate on if it was not only justified but ethical to launch tomahawk missiles into war-torn parts of Syria. In an article on the Huffington Post, Dr. Helen Ouyang argues that it was justified and that military intervention is needed. She uses different forms of arguments to draw comparisons of Syria to other countries around the world, dissociate the scenario with the past military struggles and offers many reasons why the benefit will outweigh the cost.

There are a wide variety of arguments regarding the current conflicts in the Middle East, but one of the most heated debates is whether or not the United States should interfere. Two people with opposite opinions on the matter are H. A. Goodman and David E. Johnson. Both are professional authors, and both wrote articles on the subject of United States intervention against the terrorist organization ISIS. While Goodman’s article has a wider audience, Johnson’s article is probably more persuasive and credible.

Syria is a Middle Eastern country bordering the Mediterranean sea, in between Lebanon and Turkey. The population of about 17,000,000 consists of all different religions and languages. Most of the population speaks Arabic. Armenian and Kurdish are also often spoken as well. Syrian government has the influence of Islamic laws. The country’s capital is Damascus.

Voice holds a value and can literally change the world. In March of 2011, a group of people peacefully protested against the Syrian government; however, that little action rippled into a civil war within a major country. Multiple parties got involved as well as majorities and minorities. The war in Syria is a civil war but many other countries are involved because they have personal interest in the country.

With large scale wars becoming a thing of the past because of mutually assured destruction and costly wars, proxy wars in unstable states have become more and more common. Beginning in the Cold War with United States’ policies aimed at stopping the spread of communism began a trend of supplying military support for rebels that supported their ideas. This has translated to two large states backing differing sides of a faction in order to facilitate their national goals. For example, the United Nations, the United States leading, backing rebels in Libya against the Gaddafi Regime to stop genocide, the emergence of pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine to return to Russia, and the United States backed Syrian rebels against the Russian-backed Assad regime to stop human atrocities. This raises the ethical dilemma of in what situations is the backing of rebels against a legitimate government the moral decision and when it is not. I will show in this paper that the United States supporting the Syrian rebels fight against the Syrian government is immoral using Utilitarianism.

The Syrian Uprising is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Ba'ath government and those seeking to oust its regime. The conflict has many complex entities with factions present that are seeking their own foothold in the country’s struggle over power. However, this was not always the case and an examination will take place into weather the conflict can be defined as either a civil war, an insurgency or a proxy conflict. The definition of the type of conflict is relevant as it is critical to whether or not intervention is necessary and how states may go about it, for instance, the laws of war are different from the laws of armed protests.

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.

While America was interrogating its policy of backing up rebels, the Saudis were seeking US and UN endorsement for “heavier weapons”. These rebel groups have brought anarchy and intensified the sectarian dimensions of the conflict. With brutal violence being carried out by rebel groups, it is fascinating to see how nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have escaped bearing any sort of responsibility for the status quo. However, knowing the risk of furnishing rebel militants, the uncontrolled ambition of the Saudis to initiate change in Syria has adversely transformed the situation. This combination of personal, political, and sectarian rationales has made Saudi Arabia one of the most vocal regional actors in calling for an end to the Assad

Syria is a country located in West Asia bordering the Mediterranean Sea and Lebanon to the west, Israel to the Southwest, Jordan to the south, Iraq to the east, and Turkey to the north. Syria has a mixed economy where there is restrictive private freedom, but the country remains highly controlled by the government. In this paper, I will address the overall state of Syrian, to include political influence, military and cultural demographics, and the Syrian War.

On December 18, 2010, a revolution in Tunisia initiated a rise in rebellion across the Arab world. Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Syria arose in revolutionary demonstrations, riots, protests (violent and non-violent), and in some civil wars. Syria had the most ruinous ramification. In fear of his regime being overthrown the president of Syria Bashar al-Assad initiated fire in a nonviolent protest in attempts to restore order. His retaliation only inculcated more anger in Syrian citizens and created one of the most serious unrest in Syria, which eventually started a proxy war between higher powers -the United States and Russia-involvement. The warfighting actors within Syria include; Syrian rebels, Kurds, Bashar al-Assad’s government, and now ISIS. The brutal violence has resulted from noncombatant civilians necessity to flee the country in hopes of restoring peace in their life. Over half, the state 's population is reaching out to the world for asylum. Moreover, this war has risen international disputes in the level of involvement to take in Syria. The humanitarian assistance with the refugees takes precedence, and whether to take in or not to take Syrian refugees.

Through observation of conflicts in the Middle East during recent times, the spread and viciousness of ISIS/ISIL is alarming. With widespread atrocities committed and championed by the faction, it is obvious that action must be taken in some form. With over 62 countries taking part in air strikes and supplying other military aid, including the United States, France and Canada, action is already underway. Yet, the question of legality still remains. While every participating country has found a way to legitimize its campaign, there are two sides to every legal battle. What follows is an in-depth look into both arguments, analyzing key points both for and against intervention in the Middle East in regards to ISIS/ISIL. These points include, but are not limited to, United Nation Charters, collective and individual self-defense, and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force

The nation of Syria is a predominantly Arab country in Western Asia. Its border countries include Turkey, Iraq, Palestine and Jordan. The Middle Eastern region since the early 90’s has been a volatile area waiting to erupt in violence and protests. Iraq had the dictator Saddam Hussein and was on the brink of being invaded in the Gulf War and was invaded in early 2000 after the 9/11 attacks. In recent history, Syria has been involved in multiple situations in the region militarily. The purpose of this paper is to outline the key actors in the onslaught of the Syrian Civil War and how the conflict in the region will only further destabilize the Middle East.

Syria is still a developing country in the Middle East. Its economy is based on agriculture and oil. Just these two pillars in the Syrian economy make up for about one half of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since the start of the Syrian civil war, Syria’s economy has taken a huge hit. The government has restricted trade between several countries such as the United States, Japan, and Australia. As a result, Syria has been faced with a major economic decline. These restrictions have reversed the otherwise growing economy. According to the United Nations (UN), there have been an estimated 143 billion dollars in economic damages as a result of the civil war.

Foreign intervention in the Syrian Civil War will only result in a high price to be paid, mainly the US’ loss of support on the international front as well as the financial expenses that the US would incur if involved militarily. Such civil wars and intrastate conflicts between rebel groups and the government can be resolved through diplomatic negotiations that can avoid these expenses (Frieden). The US is not financially secure enough to engage in yet another bloody conflict in the Middle East, particularly one as convoluted as the one in Syria. The usage of the word convoluted is significant in that it remains uncertain who the non-FSA and who the actual leaders of the rebellion are. According to Frieden, it is difficult to gather information about who is a part of these militant groups because they are covert and because terrorist groups have incentives to exaggerate. Furthermore, should that question and the identities of the FSA be resolved, how would we distinguish the innocent from the terrorists? Both important actors in these uprisings, the Syrian government, and the Free Syrian Army and other rebel fighters, have participated in what may be considered international war crimes that have resulted in a multitude of civilian deaths. The

The member states of the European Union share a colorful history with many countries within the Middle Eastern and African regions. This shared past has seen periods of colonial occupation and authority, but also of triumphs, bonding and accomplishment. During my in-class presentation I discussed the situation revolving around the E.U.’s relations and policy towards Syria in response to the Arab Spring uprisings. However, in light of the complicated nature of the conflict and civil war within the country, I felt it would be interesting to discuss the E.U. response and impact on the situation as a whole, and not just limited to 2011. In this paper I will examine the European Union Neighborhood Policy and its effects on the Syrian Arab Republic. In particular, I will discuss the impacts of the policy on democracy promotion in the region, and I will look at the E.U.’s crisis management/response and intervention within Syria.