Do you support U.S. intervention in Syria? | The Tylt
Do you support U.S. intervention in Syria?
Interventionists say the U.S. needs to stop ISIS and remove Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. The political situation that let ISIS come into power won't go away if the U.S. retakes a couple of cities from the group. The Syrian president's actions and complete indifference to slaughtering his own people is the problem. The U.S. cannot allow a world leader that repeatedly and flagrantly violates human rights to stay in power. It's morally wrong and will create instability around the world.
Syria is an incredibly complex situation, but it's not an impossible situation. The U.S. can still do a lot to stop the slaughter of innocent people. Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain are big advocates of intervention. They believe the fight against ISIS is also a fight against Assad. The two are linked and both have to be addressed before we see stability in the region again.
"Our strategy cannot presume to separate the fight against [ISIS] from the Syrian people's fight against the Assad regime. They are inextricably connected," they said.
There are, of course, legitimate reasons for the United States to contest this territory. The area is strategically important for Iran. If its proxies take and hold it, they could clear a corridor to Shia-controlled areas of Iraq, potentially creating a so-called “land bridge” stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean. This is alarming for America’s Sunni-Arab partners; Israel and Iranian IRGC commanders have also spoken publicly about the benefits of the bridge.
Anti-war activists argue any U.S. intervention will only make things worse. The U.S. presence in Syria is already bringing the U.S. closer to war with Iran and Russia. The situation in Syria is incredibly complex. Few moderate rebels exist. Russia and Iran are neck deep in their own Syrian intervention. The Assad government has shown they care little for international law or even what their allies the Russians want them to do. U.S. citizens have little appetite for another major war in the Middle East. A full scale U.S. intervention won't work, or at best, we'll be stuck in another Afghanistan.
The US has already attacked pro-government forces on the ground after they entered an exclusion zone designed to protect US personnel training and advising anti-government rebels near Syria’s border with Iraq. Now Washington is extending this protection to forces that it backs who are engaged in the offensive against Raqqa. These local, tactical steps inevitably could have strategic implications creating a further source of friction between Washington and Tehran. Iran’s focus is increasingly on the border region between Syria and Iraq. The struggle for control of this crucial territory is becoming ever more dangerous.
Instead of ramping things up, anti-war activists say the government should continue to seek a ceasefire, while continuing the fight against ISIS. It's not a satisfying answer, but it's the one that will minimize death and suffering for all sides.There is no easy solution; Syria is not an easy problem. There are simply no good options for any U.S. intervention.
The United States does, in fact, have a clear Syria policy: Roll back the Islamic State by way of the air campaign and American-supported Syrian rebel forces, coordinating with Russia to the extent possible; provide extensive humanitarian support; and continue to press for a sustainable cease-fire and a negotiated political transition involving Mr. Assad’s eventual departure. It may be frustrating, but against the alternatives, it is the only sensible course of action.