Blog Post 2: Syria and the Fate of Weakened/Failed States Jared Rostkowski

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 just a few examples in which the U.S. has intervened in some sort of way. Even after intervention, those three states still remain in the Top 10 in the Fragile States Index. Syria is currently 6th. There is nothing to be gained by the U.S. for intervening and intervention will only cause more deaths, more controversy, and more problems for Syria. The main problem with Syria is that it is currently controlled by 4 major groups, the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, ISIS, and the Kurds. U.S. intervention would leave one of those groups in power, and the odds are, some group is not going to like it, and the fighting will only continue. Another problem with intervening with Syria, or with any weakened state, is that intervention weakens both states. If the U.S. were to intervene in Syria, the goal would most likely be to take Assad out of power, and putting a new group in his place. So the U.S. wants to weaken the previously established government, and put an even weaker, inexperienced government in its place. Intervention in Syria would also weaken the U.S. as well. Intervention would create a lot of controversy, and controversy leads to protests against the governments decision, because unlike Iraq, there is no good political reason the government has to overthrow the government of Syria. 
Another big problem coming out of Syria that is affecting the world is the civilians trying to escape. Countries are divided over whether or not they should accept the Syrian refugees, which itself is creating controversies and protests, which weaken states ever so slightly. I want to state that I am all for making sure Syrian civilians are safe, if we were to intervene in Syria, I hope the main concern would be the safety of the civilians and not overthrowing and replacing the government. The big issue is that there is no way to ensure the safety of civilians in Syria without overthrowing Assad. I believe we will never convince Assad from killing his own people, so the only solution would be to remove Assad. But the problem with that is that a weak government would replace him, which I think would only lead to more fighting and more death. 
To summarize, weakened and failed states are doomed to stay that way, and i believe any amount of direct U.S. intervention is against U.S. interests and will only further damage Syria. As for civilians, I am all for helping them in anyway possible, but a complete overthrow of the government will only continue the problems for Syria and its people.  

Comments

  1. Victoria PierreOctober 24, 2017 at 8:35 AM

    Do you think failed states can ever redeem themselves? I agree that we should protect the lives of the Syrians, but eventually those Syrian's have to go back home to their failed state. In the long-term if we don't help that state won't civilians end up suffering again? Maybe not by immediate killings, but they won't live a life that would be fulfilling in their state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jared RostkowskiOctober 24, 2017 at 3:18 PM

      I am unsure on whether or not a failed state can redeem itself. The end goal should be to have everyone back home and safe, but as we've seen in states such as Somalia and Iraq, even after U.S. intervention there is still a lot of problems and it is not safe to be in either of those places. So far, either sides of a U.S. intervention has only things made things worse for both sides, and only time will tell if that trend will break.

      Delete
  2. UnknownOctober 24, 2017 at 3:36 PM

    The Syrian situation is definitely hard to get involved in and there is a price to pay for either side. However, the only real way to stop chemical warfare is to remove the Assad regime, which can possibly lead to more corruption if an unstable group takes power. However, if we do not try to help the civilians in Syria do you feel like we will have more problems with Syrian refuges? Since there will be more of an increase of refugees if this process with Assad continues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tom PilatOctober 24, 2017 at 4:01 PM

    In today's world, the U.S. is always portrayed as the top player, and responsible for the saving of anything that goes sour. However, Syria has a lot of moving parts to its struggle, and besides the humanitarian atrocities that are going on over there, the U.S. has very little interest in intervening. It is realistic that the U.S. could take in some refugees, but they can't take in all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UnknownOctober 25, 2017 at 10:15 AM

    I agree with what you're saying, especially what you mentioned about the infighting that would occur after the U.S. intervention placed one of the four ruling groups in power. It seems that in many cases when we have intervened in a crisis militarily, we have disrupted the cultural balance in the nation, which can leading to more strife after we leave. Because of the number of players involved, I believe the chances of a peaceful aftermath to U.S. intervention in Syria are extremely low.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 3 Jared Rostkowski Why NAFTA is not "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever"

Why NAFTA isn't “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever” Jared Rostkowski On September 25th 2016 during the first presidential debate of 2016, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.” NAFTA is the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which eliminated tariffs between the three countries. Trump has continued to voice his displeasure with the trade deal, mostly with Mexico. Anyway, NAFTA is not the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, in fact, it is actually a trade deal that the 3 countries benefit greatly from the trade deal, and we should not pull out of it anytime soon.  So what does Trump dislike about the deal. His main displeasure comes with the fact that many companies from the U.S. are moving manufacturing to Mexico, to take advantage of Mexico’s cheap labor. Trump argued that companies like For...
Read more

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more
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 ...
Read more