 |
| These aren't the rebels you're looking for Assad |
The New York Times reported that the United States is considering increasing its assistance to Syrian rebels resisting Assad's regime. The rebels will receive military advice, equipment, and training at a base in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry actively called for the United States to provide additional assistance to the Syrian rebels while visiting Paris. While this good fortune for the rebels, what does this mean for the United States? Getting dragged into yet another military conflict in the Middle East seems contradictory to President Obama's hopes that the Afghanistan War would end within a year so that the troops come return safely. If the United States chooses to expand the range of its assistance to the rebels, there is the distinct possibility that our troops could be deployed there.
As The Christian Science Monitor points out, President Obama's possible decision to provide more "nonlethal" aid to the rebels steps on morally questionable grounds. To be fair, without direct intervention, radical Islamist groups are gradually gaining support in Syria. Providing defensive military equipment to hold back potential future terrorists is not a bad idea. The problem is that the Syrian rebels themselves are technically terrorists. They could be just as dangerous as radical Islamist groups if they choose to give some of the equipment to terrorist groups or begin using them to slaughter civilians as they see fit. As thousands of people are dying in Syria, perhaps the act of doing nothing is casting the United States in a bad light, forcing President Obama to call for more intervention. Of course, polls show most Americans aren't itching for a fight.
On Thursday, John Kerry will attend a meeting in Rome to discuss the Syria situation and will probably call for more international aid for Syria. USA Today quotes the director of the Middle East Center at the London School of Economics for noting that "I think we are going to see the Obama administration directly engaging the armed opposition inside Syria - a flow of U.S. (aid) to the armed opposition, including various material and also training, and command and control intelligence." That's definitely more than a little help, in my opinion. With the United States backing the rebels, they have a good chance of overthrowing Assad. However, there could be future consequences. It is always possible that the United States may be indirectly arming Al-Qaeda if the rebels ever choose to follow the terrorist group's mindset. Should we act rashly, we could endanger the fate of Syria.
Do you feel the United States should get more involved in the Syria conflict? Should we encourage other countries to help out as well? What are the chances of American support actually helping the rebels win? Are the rebels actually better than Assad in the long-run? These questions and more need to be answered if we are to take the correct path in Syria.
Here's a video news report on this issue for your viewing convenience.
2 comments:
This reminds me a lot of all of the little wars and coups that the US was involved with during the Cold War. We were so desperate to battle communism that we would entangle ourselves in all sorts of international conflicts, and end up supporting whichever side wasn't full of communists. Of course, the non-communist side wasn't always equipped to lead well or even humanely. Replace "Communism" with "Islamist groups" and thats the situation we have now. I can't help but wonder if the countries we "help" today will end up struggling under their own secular, yet still incapable governments in a few years.
In response to Rachel's comment, I agree that one could view the current struggle against terrorism as similar to our past struggle against the forces of Communism. It is true that countries the USA tries to help may not be able to function after we leave. It is possible that they may end up dependent on the USA's help. The NYT did give reasons to help Syria before though.
Of course, I don't think it wise for the USA to involve itself too much in the affairs of others. It costs way too much money and right now our economic situation clearly shows that we cannot afford to spend anything excessive when we ourselves are struggling. Though our perceptions may be flawed.
Is supporting these "Islamist groups" in the USA's best interest? Surely deposing of Assad is a good thing... right? However, I do fear future consequences from our current decision to help these rebels (or terrorists). The hand that feeds sometimes gets bit, and the Syrian rebels may just shoot us if we're not careful.
Post a Comment