Blog Group 4

In order to go about the Syrian Civil war, there has to be a removal of the Assad regime. Assad is failing greatly with his responsibility to protect Syria by using chemical weapons and bombs on his own people. The basic rights these humans hold are being pulled away from them and they are struggling to survive. By removing Assad from Syria it will allow there to be peace with the rebels and create a humanitarian approach in Syria. Even with military intervention there is no sure way that Assad would stop putting his people in harm's way. By entering Syria without the removal of the Assad regime it would put the Syrian population in great danger as well as the United States troops. There is no interest for the United States to enter war with Syria and it would also destabilize both countries. However, it is a duty to allow humans to have their basic rights and to be protected. There is some debate over the removal of the Assad regime and how it would in turn create chaos in ...

Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski In April 2017, President Trump ordered a missile strike on an airbase which allegedly carried out a chemical weapon attack on Syrian rebels by the Syrian government. This was the first military action the U.S. had taken on the war-torn Syria. Syria began the plunge into civil war back in 2011 when protestors were shot dead in the city of Deraa, and the U.S. had, for the most part, stayed away from any physical involvement in the civil war. But since the bombings back in April, it has sparked a debate on whether or not the U.S. should send soldiers into Iraq to try and end this civil war. The side that I have taken is with the Larison reading. Syria is a tar-pit, anyone who interferes is going to only damage themselves and further damage the country.  The problem with weakened and failed states is that they are doomed to stay that way the majority of the time. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia are ju...

Yousuf Sander                          Why Syrian Intervention is a Bad Play for the U.S. Foreign intervention has become a staple policy choice if the United States since the early decades of the 20 th century. Time and time again, we have intervened in order to protect our interests, installing dictators in Latin America, toppling them in the middle east, all in order to protect our foreign interests. However, what is the right course of action when a crisis occurs that does not put our interests at stake? How, as the world ’ s foremost superpower, can we sit by and do nothing as the crisis evolves in Syria? Though intervention may seem like the obvious choice, we must weigh the costs, and our decision must be strategically based and thought out. For this reason, I don ’ t believe intervention is the right option due to the reactionary and impulsive nature ...

After our debate in class today, I feel that I have a clear stance on what I believe what the U.S should do about the Civil war in Syria and how they should intervene. Out of all the readings, I agree with Betcy Jose's argument.  In any type of war or crisis in a country, the civilians should be protected first. Those civilians are the ones who have to rebuild after the mess that was created by the government, but nothing can be rebuilt if Assad is killing his own people. A quote that stuck with me in the Jose reading was, " [Assad] has not even spared well-entrenched mores, such as those protecting healthcare workers". Syrian healthcare workers are taking care of civilians and the lives of people who are physically fighting in the war. Why wouldn't want to protect the healthcare workers that can help prevent any more casualties, even the people that are fighting on his side? I also think it is important to think about the civilians because I think we ar...

Throughout the past couple of weeks we have discussed numerous times, the effects of nuclear weapons, and the way international/regional relations are affected by them. More specifically, we discussed the nuclear situation in the middle east pertaining to Iran. We debated a little in class  about whether or not Iran acquiring a bomb would be a positive or negative occurrence. After debating the topic, and going over readings in class, I believe that Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities would be a good thing, rather than bad. Many have argued against this point. Many think that as soon as iran acquires nuclear capabilities, they will instantly use it against Israel. It is also argued that since Iran has ties to hateful groups like Isis, they will arm terrorist groups with nuclear weapons. Historically speaking, countries that have acquired nuclear weapons, have not become increasingly aggressive. They have actually become more retracted in their ways. Many believe that when a countr...