Should the US take action against the Assad regime? | The Tylt
The New York Times reports 51 diplomats have signed an internal memo urging for aggressive action — diplomatically and militarily — against the Assad regime. Most of the diplomats have been involved with Syrian policy over the past five years in various positions.
The Obama administration has largely followed a hands-off policy with the Assad regime, and has focused its military efforts on pushing back ISIS. The Obama administration has shown reluctance and skepticism towards unilateral action. They have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are thinking about what happens after we topple the Assad regime. There is no good option, and an intervention may worsen the conflict.
Who will take their place? Do moderates with broad base support even exist? Short of installing our own dictator, what can we do?
Critics of the non-interventionist policy point to the sheer human toll the Assad regime has been inflicting on Syrian citizens. By some counts, nearly 400,000 people have been killed and millions have been displaced, many of them at the hands of indiscriminate shelling and dropping of barrel bombs by the regime. The U.S. have let groups like ISIS find and establish footholds in the region, and the Assad's heinous actions add fuel to the fire. These things have happened because we did not step in.
The U.S. risks a lot when it takes action, but the country risks even more by sitting on the sidelines as the conflict continues to spiral.
#removeAssad or #stayOutOfSyria?
Should the US take action against the Assad regime?
if obama isnt willing to intervene militarily in syria, then he shouldn't be intervening on humantarian front for it is is futile&endless— janice skorupa (@janrask) June 17, 2016