After Putin's meeting with Iran's Quds Force commander in late July, Russia has gradually sent around 1000 troops to Syria, and these troops are equipped the same way as the troops that Russia deployed into Crimea(Russian version or US Rangers). Putin has said that Russia wants to help Syria defeat the islamic state and the ISIS organization. Putin, I believe, has made some valid points, saying that ,you cannot defeat the the terrorists with air strikes only. He believes that the best way to defeat the Islamic State is through the Syrian military because they are the best equipped for the job and they are down on the ground. This I do not agree with.
President Obama spoke out on this saying that, "We are gonna be engaging Russia to let them know that you can't continue to double down on a strategy thats doomed to failure." (Double down effectively means risking more to get a bigger reward) The president is talking about the military support that Russia has been providing for Syria by sending them weapons, and now they take it a step further by sending in forces hoping that they can get some sort of reward out of this.
The State Department however states "I don't know if we can call it a buildup necessarily" John Kirby (State Department Spokesman). Kirby is talking about the 1000 Russian troops that were sent to Syria. I disagree with the view the State Department is taking on this. I feel like this is a bit similar to the way the US reacted to the Rwandan Genocide, where the US tells the public, in a sense, nothing is happening, that we should be worried about. They do this because they either don't want to get involved, or they don't necessarily know what to do about the issue. I think this act by Russia does signal a buildup, because Putin is no longer just sending weapons, he is sending Russian soldiers. I see this is a "no duhh" situation, meaning that I don't think we should be questioning weather this is a buildup of Russian military involvement in Syria or not, we should question what the US will do about it?
I find it that the government has deceived us people way to many times over the years about what is happening in the world, weather by withholding information, or by providing us with false or misleading information. The reason why they are able to continually to do so, is because there have been no consequences for previous politicians or presidents who, after the fact, have been discovered to have intentionally spun or deceive the public in one way or the other. I believe the public has the right to always know the truth and be informed on what the US in doing on issues at hand. This is something that is not specifically addressed in the constitution, but it is a big issue that has affected this country many times.
A few things to think about:
Do you think the US should be worried about Russia sending troops in Syria and being involved with Iran as well? Is the Syrian military the ideal source to defeat the islamic state?
Secondly, Why do you think the State Department is downplaying these events that are occurring? Do you disagree or agree with the State Department?
(Feel free to comment on these or any other topics)
3 comments:
You say that you believe the public should always know what the government is doing, for it to be transparent, yet our constitution was written under an oath of secrecy. As we have looked at in our earlier unit sometimes secrecy, especially temporary secrecy can be a better thing than daily updates on the government that the media would spin. Although I agree that the government should not keep things from us indefinitely or forever and should aim for transparency sometimes the media can cause problems with this tactic. Thoughts?
It is true that the constitution was written under secrecy, and I don't think that the people need to know all the details on what the government is doing. But as we look back on the past we see that the only secrecy that lead to anything good was that of he founding fathers. On other cases, for example, the US giving out information about USS Maine, but keeping it a secret that they did not know for sure what happened, actually lead to a war with Spain. The problem with secrecy is that there are not that many good honest politicians nowadays that are willing to give up their own power in order to help the country, like the founding fathers were willing to do.
I don't think the US should be worried about the Russian troops in Syria, yet. I know that's been a bad stance to take in history in matters of genocide but I don't think 1000 Russian troops are going to start systematically murder Syrians. I agree with the State Department, kind of. I do not think we should respond with sanctions threatening Russia's withdraw or send troops to add on to the Russian troops already there. I think there is nothing to do and therefore nothing should be done, yet. I don't really find this buildup comparable to the Rwandan Genocide because Rwanda involved a lot more decades of hate than Russians have for Syrians.
Post a Comment