Summary:
On Saturday, the Pentagon announced that it "overwhelmed and evaded Syrian air defenses overnight to strike every target at the heart of Syria’s chemical weapons program, in a multi-pronged attack from the air and sea alongside British and French allies." This was in response to an alleged sarin and chlorine gas attack on a Syrian rebel stronghold.
The Pentagon mentioned that Syria's air defense system was overwhelmed, and Russia's air defense system did not activate.
Russia, an ally to Assad, notably tried to introduce a U.N. resolution to condemn the joint airstrike, which was voted down by a majority of countries in the U.N.
Putin, the President of Russia, also made a call to Iran condemning the airstrike. The Kremlin released a statement saying, "Vladimir Putin, in particular, emphasized that if such actions continue in violation of the UN Charter, this will inevitably lead to chaos in international relations"
Analysis:
Russia and Syria notably signed a U.S. framework to destroy Syria's chemical weapons in 2014. While the chemical attack is still alleged, Assad has a clear motive to attack rebel bases and western countries say they have proof that the attack was committed by Assad...
Questions:
1.) How should the U.S. respond to violations of human rights?
2.) What should the role of the U.S. be in the middle east?
3.) How can the U.S. further its interests without causing a larger conflict?
Sources/Further Reading:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/04/16/world/16syria1/16syria1-master768-v2.jpg
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-pentagon/u-s-strikes-cripple-syrias-chemical-weapons-ability-pentagon-idUSKBN1HL0WE
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-warns-global-crisis-after-u-s-led-strike-syria-n866151
5 comments:
Just like our buddy Kim in Korea, Putin drops yet another empty threat on social media. Remember when he said Russia would retaliate and respond if the US hits Syria with missiles? Nothing happened. American fighters were able to make their precision strikes uncontested. Russia knows they wouldn't win a war against the States - they don't have the tech, the allies, or the resources.
Although Josh brings up good points, I think that the U.S. should be more cognizant of their actions because Trump is starting to piss a lot of countries off, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if one of them tries to attack us.
The U.S does not need to respond to the violation of human rights. In my opinion, it is not their problem unless it poses a threat to the United States. If the United States intervened everywhere where there is a human rights issue, the United States would be in a lot of conflict with other countries. We shouldn't piss other countries off, because that would put a strain on our resources and trade ect. The role of the U.S in the middle east should be to finish what they have going on and leave. They've already invested so much time they might as well finish it. As with not increasing the problem, maybe pull out when they've done enough and go back in at a later time.
In conformity with international law, America should only fight if there is an immanent threat or a UN Security Council resolution allowing it. Assad really poses no threat to America, so the alternative would be to get security council approval. America knows that won't happen, which is why Trump didn't even try to get it. This is similar to how with Iraq, America tried to get a resolution supporting them, but when that failed they just invaded illegally. America only cares about international law when it sanctions them, and if it doesn't, they will ignore law and order. People will criticize Russia and China for vetoing against the will of America, but ironically they are the ones following international law, while America has a view that might makes right.
America needs to stay out of other countries business, but at the very least they should have an actual investigation about the chemical attacks with an actual solution that might stop them from happening.
First of all, the United States should not invade Syria. That was a mess in Iraq and would be a mess there too. In Iraq we had no plans to stabilize the region after removing much of its power structure and therefore the new nation struggled was forced to rely on US security forces to keep order and defend itself from insurgencies. If we are going to replicate that situation, which would be a bad idea in Syria anyway, we would need a plan for rebuilding the already broken nation.
As for how the US should respond to human rights violations: this is a very complicated situation; we have what is essentially a proxy war with Russia, with the US, Kurds, and Syrian Rebels on our side, and Russia, Assad, and the Iranians on the other. If you add the independent ISIS, Israel, and Turkey to the equation it appears that we have an incredibly complex conflict on our hands. All sides are fighting for their own interest, and in most cases these interests are conflicting. Our interests include protecting the Syrian resistance, defeating ISIS, and eliminating the use of chemical weapons. The problem is that Russia and the Syrian regime do not want to get rid of chemical weapons as it is a major tool the regime can use to ensure its security. When we are thinking about how we can accomplish our goal of eliminating chemical weapons, we have a few options, the first is military force, the second is covert operations to sabotage the chemical weapons program (like we probably did with Stuxnet and the Iranian nuclear program), or we can negotiate with the regime and its allies to destroy these weapons. I would argue that, because of the many factions involved in the conflict, diplomacy is the best option.
My answer to the first question is similar to that of the first. I think the United States should play the role of mediator in negotiations, and use minimal military action to ensure peace in the region.
My answer to the third question is exactly the same as the first: diplomacy.
Post a Comment