Analyzing the growing troubles that
plague the country of Syria it is becoming clear to many nations that the
alleged atrocities that are being committed must be stopped. The level at which
the international community, and for that matter who in the international
community should aid, should come to the help on behalf of the Syrian people is
undoubtedly up for debate. I take the position that intervention is needed in
Syria but it should be done for human rights and not military, in addition the
intervention force should not be solely from a state such as the United States
but a joint coalition of countries.
While
many parties agree that intervention should be done with the purpose of helping
the people of Syria that are being put through a Civil War, there are those who
believe that military intervention from a third party is necessary. I disagree
with this view for the last thing the United States needs is to be embroiled in
another conflict half the world away. Looking at the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan these were decade long wars that resulted in thousands of American
soldiers deaths and billions of dollars on a war that was not our own. If the
United States were to be involved in another war similar to that of Iraq and Afghanistan
the consequences could be dire. While
intervention in Syria for humanitarian reasons is absolutely necessary military
intervention from the United States is an option that should be ruled out for
the potential cost is too much. The viable option would be a joint coalition
force with the goal of aiding the people of Syria. Through this option no one
nation would be forced to bear the full burden of assisting a whole nation of
people suffering through a tumultuous civil war.
It
has been widely accepted that through the Syrian Civil War its innocent people
are suffering. I believe the correct course of action that can aid the people of
Syria without any escalation of conflict is to create a joint humanitarian
effort through many of the major nations.
What about an intervention like the one in Syria or Kosovo where few in any boots were put on the ground?
ReplyDeleteWhat about an intervention like the one in Syria or Kosovo where few in any boots were put on the ground?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument. You make a strong point that just because the United States is considered a world power and is capable of such intervention, does not mean that it should fall on our shoulders alone.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that you not only addressed that an intervention is outside the scope of the responsibility of the United States, but that you also supported the concept of humanitarian effort in conjunction with other countries. That is a really strong idea, and in that sense we are helping without integrating our country into the inner workings of the Syrian war.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we should intervene, however I'm not sure how effective it will be without some military intervention
ReplyDelete