The United States is known for it’s humanitarian
intervention all through out the world. As a great power they take
responsibility to spread human rights, peace and democracy to the world. But
when should the nation intervene and when should the U.S. just stay home and
focus on more domestic problems. Today we ask this question with the conflicts
in Syria.
To some the
Islamic State in Syria is a great threat to our nations people and to our
allies. This force must be stop. Others may not see it as an immediate threat.
In the month of September President Barack Obama decided to send airstrikes
over Syria to “destroy and dismantle” ISIS. Former Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta criticized President Obama for not taking into consideration all his
options and not sending ground troops to Syria. Panetta claims you need to know
what your target is before you send air strikes.
What should
the U.S. do in this situation? If we were to decide to send ground troops along
with more airstrikes, when do we stop? Do we begin another war that could last
years, killing both American and Syrian lives. Are ultimate goal is destroy the
terrorist groups and ensure safety in the world and the U.S., this may come at
a large price.
In the
situation that the U.S. stays in Syria and destroys ISIS, the U.S. may decide
to stay for nation building and secure U.S. safety against another terrorist
groups that may arise. The greatest
explanation for the U.S. potential to stay in Syria is the Democratic Peace
Theory. The U.S has the ultimate goal to spread democracy and peace. By
converting other nations into democracies the security of the U.S. seems to be
more secure. We have seen through out
history that the U.S. has used this reason to engage in intervention. “Each
presidential administration since President Woodrow Wilson has used the
democratic peace theory as the basis of its justification for foreign intervention,
particularly war.”(Jackson, Democratic
peace theory: a appropriate guide to foreign policy, 2011)
It might
seem that we have ulterior motives to stay after the terrorist groups are
destroyed. We want to continue our reputation as a world leader in democracy.
When we help build a strong democracy the U.S. can take credit for its
accomplishment further down in history. When we see a weak state the U.S. at
times can see it as a perfect occasion to re-build the state as a democracy.
But I believe because of the severity of the issue in Syria and the potential
threat it has to the American people, the U.S. may decide to stay in Syria in
order to assure that no other terrorist groups arises. We have seen this happen
before especially in the Middle East. We
don’t exactly know what future steps the U.S. will take, but it is most likely
that no decision will be an easy decision. ISIS power continues to build and
each day we hear on news outlets about new people who have joined their
movement. Now we have to question what is the nations next step to stop this and
bring safety to all people.
I completely agree that, in the event that the United States goes all-in on Syria, we'll stay and attempt to establish a democracy. It's just what we do. But I don't know whether it's right or not. It seems as though we tend to enter these nations, set up democracies, and they either never get off the ground, or they end up failing down the road. I'm just not sure whether democracy can work in that part of the world (with the obvious exception of Israel). As I said in my post, I think we need a different strategy. Not only for intervention, but for nation-building. What we've done in the past hasn't worked, so we have to try something different.
ReplyDeleteJennifer, in response to your post, I believe the United States should continue air strikes in Syria but hold off on putting troops on the ground. If we spread our military too thin, we will not succeed in any of our ventures and will get so overloaded that we will never be able to move forward as a nation. Though we of course want to help spread peace throughout the world, there is only so much our country can do. I do not think it is quite realistic to assume it will be easy or even possible to simply change Syria into a democracy--I believe we need to take one step at a time and focus on airstrikes and getting more information about the Islamic State before getting ahead of ourselves and planning too far in advance. I think planning actions for after we have destroyed the Islamic State should not be a priority of our country right now, as simply obtaining complete information about them and identifying the best solution to confront them alone could take years in itself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that simply identifying the best solution could take years. One of the things that I think people fail to realize is that there is no quick fix to this problem. This is going to be a hard fight. In my eyes, the biggest potential problem with ground troops is the longevity of this process. Do we really want to commit ground troops to Syria for 10, 15, 20 years? Because you can't just pull them out in 5 or 10 if things haven't gone as planned. We tried that before, and it assisted in the rise of ISIS. There has to be a balance between planning and finding a reasonable solution and taking swift action. You can't wait too long to act, but you also can't go in without a solid plan because we've done that before and had it end in chaos.
DeleteI think it's interesting to consider how you mentioned there seems to be two very different viewpoints when it comes to US involvement in this conflict--- those who feel ISIS is a great threat to our nation and allies and those who feel ISIS is not an immediate threat to us. I think, personally, I fall somewhere in between the two spectrums of thought. As I mentioned in my post about the democratic peace theory, I feel as though sometimes America has a tendency to get too caught up in helping weaker nations democratize to the point where we end up using all these resources and losing all these troops in a conflict that had little to do with us. However, I think at this point, this conflict might go a lot deeper than that. When ISIS targeted and killed American citizens James Foley and Steven Sotloff, this conflict became a lot more personal for the US. And while i don't know if that means we have an obligation to stay in Syria to help rebuild after we can end this conflict, I do think at this point it is necessary the US stay in Syria to see through the destruction of ISIS, even if that comes at a high cost.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that many are overstating the ISIS threat but I would even take it a step further. They are a small group that has nowhere near the military power to oppose the US. Those who are pushing involvement are doing so for a myriad of reasons but being threatened by them is not a major concern. It is more in the interest of saving lives and preventing the rise of ISIS in power that I would agree to get involved now. Syria, and many of its neighboring countries as well, are increasingly unstable and ISIS has risen in power very quickly and could continue to do so. With this fear in mind, I would agree to escalate the conflict, to prevent further loss of innocent lives and further more stop a rising terrorist threat before it can gain to much traction.
Delete