Sydney Pezza-Luther (Blog Post 2)

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 the most populated parts of Syria. In addition, by removing Assad it would be impossible to plan for the future of Syria and would eventually lead to more destruction. However, it is impossible to plan for the future of Syria as of now, there is no way to know for sure what Assad plans to do next. The Syrian people are being deprived of their basic human rights under the Assad regime which is crucial factor for his removal.

The chemical warfare that Assad is using against his people must be put to an end. However, the basic rights of humans should not be overlooked as well. It is a duty under the ICISS to have the responsibility to protect and intervene when necessary.

Comments

  1. Victoria PierreOctober 24, 2017 at 8:29 AM

    I do agree that Assad needs to be removed immediately, but how would we do it without getting the people who support him to fight against us? I agree that we should intervene immediately but I wonder what would be the best way to make sure more lives are not lost. I do think that stopping the make of chemical weapons will help with that issue as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownOctober 24, 2017 at 3:58 PM

      It is an extremely hard situation to get involved into and it is hard to predict what will happen with his supporters and especially with the rebels as well. It is also crucial to not put our soldiers at risk as well.

      Delete
  2. Jared RostkowskiOctober 24, 2017 at 3:23 PM

    While I do agree with getting rid of Assad, due to his mistreatment of his own people. I'm afraid that these problems in Syria won't disappear, because along with the rebels, there is also the Kurds, ISIS, and there will probably continue to be Assad supporters even after he is removed. So even with a regime change, there may still be inner conflict, but only time would tell what would happen with a regime change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownOctober 25, 2017 at 10:22 AM

      In addition to the obstacles you mentioned, Assad has the steadfast support of the Russian government. Any direct attempt to remove him from power would send U.S. and Russian relations into a spiral. Our minor attack in April of Assad's airfield alone rocked the relationship between the two countries. Especially in the political scandal we face right now regarding Russia in our own country, destroying U.S. - Russian relations by attacking Assad would be a poor decision.

      Delete
  3. Tom PilatOctober 24, 2017 at 3:48 PM

    The Syrian conflict is a true tragedy because no matter what the outcome, there will be devastation. Change is definitely needed by getting rid of Assad, but its difficult to judge who will step into leadership after. I agree with Jared, that the removal of Assad would cause a lot of internal conflicts and uncertainty. I think an important part of this whole conflict would to have Assad removed in the end, because if he's not, all of the senseless tragedy was done for nothing.

    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