Monday, October 12, 2015
US Weaponry Is Turning Syria Into A Proxy War With Russia
The US has been deploying weapons for rebel insurgent groups in Syria. US involvement in the Syrian conflict has increased now that Russia has significantly increased airstrikes against the insurgent groups. With the United States supporting the rebels and Russia supporting the Syrian government, their involvement has escalated into a heavy proxy war. Although moral on both sides of the Syrian conflict has increased, things are looking in favor of the Syrian government due to the direct Russian involvement. Do you think we should react to the Russian presence in Syria? If so, how? Should we be concerned that we could be arming future terrorist organizations like we did in Afghanistan? Is it even our job to be intervening in the Syrian conflict?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the Russian's involvement in Syria is what really prompted other countries to provide more aid and support to the opposition of the Syrian government. I think the US should have figured out what they wanted to do about Syria long before they were forced to decide as they have had to now because of Russia.
ReplyDeleteFrom a logical standpoint and from looking at the past, I think it would have been best to stay out of the conflict. We left Afghanistan and Iraq worse off...
From a moral standpoint I think we owe it to humanity to help others in need. I still don't see why it has to be the US's job to intervene. If you notice lots of other countries stay out of all the conflicts or maintain neutrality.
The United States has intervened in so many struggling countries in the past half century and next to none of them have worked out well for us or the country that we invade. Although we claim to have good intentions, most of the time it seems that the native people do not want us there, especially after the conflict is "resolved" and we cannot invade every country that does something wrong. We are wasting our men's lives and our country's money and resources to simply aid in the killing of other people. If we want situations to improve, we cannot equip every rebel group with guns and expect them not to shoot each other once/if their common enemy is defeated. Also, if I lived in Syria and had heard stories of US intervention in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, I would not want the US to come to my aid. It seems to me that we cause more problems than we fix.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it is an incredibly difficult decision to make as to whether or not we should be intervening in this situation. Personally, I tend to think that it is morally necessary for those with power to help those without, and so, assuming that this case is viewed upon as such, we are called to act, at least morally. However, it's not that simple. We must consider whether or not our actions will end up being for the greater good, or if they will end up being hurtful in general. Certainly, they will be cause for economics woes, and furthermore starting a proxy war with Russia is not a good idea to start with. There are so many factors to consider, and we must also remember that in the past actions such as those we are taking now have backfired, as well as hurt the countries we've intervened in (Afghanistan and Vietnam, respectively). Therefore, it would appear that if we do not take a different course of action, we will be a hindrance, and if we find it morally necessary to intervene, we must take a different path than those we have taken before. As to whether or not we should supply anti-aircraft weapons, I think it raises an important point to consider if we don't trust them fully (I understand that they area great step forward, but it still raises an important point, in my opinion). Overall, we stand in a very precarious position here, and we must work to take a different route this time so as to create a better outcome.
ReplyDeleteI believe that U.S involvement in Syria should be limited to actions that result from responses to Russian attacks and strikes which affect the Syrian people. In saying this, I also think that U.S. diplomatic efforts should supercede any military action. Sanctions and public condemnation of Russian activity in Syria should be our first line of defense. However, if that does not work, we should consider military action that stems from our own military, not the Syrian people's. I would strongly advise against arming any local militias, as often times the weapons end up in the wrong hands, or the group which we think is a friend to us now could turn against us later (as evidenced by previous involvement in Afghanistan).
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, I think it would be unwise to involve ourselves in any other nation's domestic issues unless they directly impacted multiple countries in some way (and that the U.S. should never have attempted to aid rebel groups without being provoked by other major powers). However, now that Russia has become a factor in this issue, I feel that it is paramount that someone step in to diffuse the situation. Russia has proved in recent years that it has little regard for the sovereignty and independence of other nations, and needs to learn not to interfere in this regard (a lesson the United States needs to learn as well). Overall, I think that the U.S. should not act as a global peacekeeping force. There should be some kind of coalition of nations that can help out in these situations-say, the E.U. or the U.N.- so that problems of this magnitude can be solved in a way in which most people agree. Any military engagement between Russia and the U.S. would be a result of prior tensions between the two countries, it would not have anything to do with the civil war in Syria. We really don't need one war turning into two.
Personally, I believe that we have no business being in Syria or any other country for that matter. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help people who are suffering, but often times, we just make the conditions worse there for the people. We have invaded ("aided" some people may say) many countries in the last fifty years alone and most, if not all, of our efforts have simply made the mess more complicated and bigger. I believe that we should help Syria, but not with our military. We should provide shelter for refugees and help them start a new life - even though we are not near Syria, European countries (who are becoming overwhelmed by the numbers of refugees) could fly groups to us and we could help them move on, support them. It is time for us to stop being the international police. It is time for us to stop trying to force democracy on every country that we can. Democracy does not work for every single country. It doesn't even work for the USA sometimes. Our job should be only to help the people who can't help themselves. The citizens who get caught in the middle of a government and rebels/terrorists.
ReplyDeleteAs to Russia's involvement now in Syria... I think that the more countries that get involved through military and weapons, the more bloody and messy it will get. Weapons don't solve anything. If someone is angry and they have a weapon, they can harm a lot of people. If they are angry, but do not have a weapon... Huh. Not as many people get hurt. Maybe a few, but not nearly as many as there would be if the angry person had a gun or a knife. This is my belief.
In my personal opinion, I think the U.S. shouldn't be involved in any part of Syria because our country should be more worried about helping us rather than other countries. Don't get me wrong, I believe it's very important to help people in need, but our country should try to help out as much as they can, while still keeping their distance. Our country should be more worried about making our country a better place. From decades past, we have invaded other countries to try and help, but a lot of the time it made matters worse with more American deaths and bigger problems. In some cases, I think it's important for us to fight for the right reasons and when we absolutely have to. But I think that if we don't have to invade a country as American soldiers we should save as many American lives as we can. I think it's important to help Syria but there's no need for the military to come in because there's no need to fight. We should provide aid and shelter for the refugees in Syria, but nothing more. Help the people in need, and that's all we should do in my opinion. The last thing we need is more American lives dead.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to our job as a country to help intervene in Syria, I think Russia's involvement is just as worse. The more countries get involved, the more of a mess it becomes and lives get lost. The use of weapons causes problems for everyone, the sole purpose is to kill and that should never be the answer. This could potentially set off more terrorist attacks just like what we did in Afghanistan. The U.S. should've figured out if they wanted to get involved in Syria long before Russia started getting involved. This made the U.S. act on impulse and try to get involved in other country's problems, which isn't always the best answer.
I think we should stay out of the conflict and stop forcing our system of government down other people's throats. Besides, Syria is nowhere near the U.S. so if a government that's hostile to the U.S. gains power it could not possibly affect us. We need to become an "isolationist" country like our government pre-WW2. It is not our business to be world police. We must let other countries sort their own troubles out. Yes, of course it's worrisome that Russia is being so aggressive, but that is their choice. We know better than to be aggressive like that, just look what happened in Vietnam or Iraq. Also, how would you like it if a foreign country bombed your hometown and set up a government that satisfies them? Most people here in the U.S. think democracy is good, but needless to say not everyone in the world does. The Syrian rebels are fighting for different governments. Some moderates are fighting to establish a democracy, while others like ISIS want an islamic empire. I think we should let the Syrian people sort their own conflict out, the U.S. has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteI think the US had good intentions by trying to help the problems in Syria, but I don’t think we should have actually gotten involved. The government should have learned from past experiences and realized that whenever we go into other countries to resolve issues, we usually make the situations worse. Our involvement in other countries conflicts has never really benefited anyone. I think our government should have tried and helped Syria as much as possible without getting the military involved. Also, by supplying people with weapons we are just encouraging them to start wars. I also agree that we should stop forcing other countries to adopt democracy.
ReplyDeleteWe should focus more on resolving the many issues in our own country before we go and help countries that don’t really need our help.
This is not the first time the United States has got involved with a foreign country in distress. It is such a difficult decision whether to send help or just watch a corrupt leader rule. I think the United States only got involved because of who was supporting their opposition. Russia was involved in sending troops into Crimea last year and now Putin is supporting Mr. Hassad in Syria. I think these situations are setting up a potential "Cold War" like situation. I think we need to handle this with care and not do more then we should.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the US should get too inlvolved in this situation. We should send some kind of humanitarian aid especially to the refugees that this war is affecting but we shouldn't send any military. With Russia being there I think that would only make things messier and not do to much good. We don't need to many cooks in Syria. We should just help out as much as we morally can with out interfering to much. We don't want to make the same mistake we've made in the past with other incidents.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the US should be participating in this conflict. America always tries to intervene in foreign affairs, and it has never turned out well. People think that since the US is such a powerful nation, they should be helping those in need, but a lot of the US's "helping" just causes more disorder/deaths. You don't see China, a strong nation, or other countries repeatedly meddling in foreign affairs. Besides, the US has so many domestic issues it needs to worry about that it shouldn't even be considering wasting money and lives overseas.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, let me state that I'm not opposed to being involved in the affairs of other countries. As a world super-power, many, including myself, would argue that we have a responsibility towards weaker countries to lend a hand when possible. Sometimes we even get to the point where war is truly necessary. That being said, the United States might want to adopt a pragmatic approach to foreign intervention - and, pragmatically speaking, our country does not have a very good record when it comes to ousting dictators and replacing said regimes with stable governments. So, we must ask ourselves: are we intervening in a potentially unwinnable situation? Do the possible benefits of creating yet another power vacuum in the Middle East outweigh the possible drawbacks?
ReplyDeleteHere on United States soil, if you were to ask anyone if the United States was at war in Syria, you'd most likely get a firm "no". They'd be right, too, if only technically. But, the truth is, we are getting involved with a war that is not ours. And, by keeping physical boots off the ground, we are able to maintain the illusion that we are not at war. And yet, we are spending hundred of millions of dollars. People are losing their lives. If it walks like a war and talks like a war, apparently it's not a war as long as the American government creates the illusion that it's not.
The aspect of this war which is perhaps most damaging for the United States in the long run is our relationship with Russia. I feel as if the United States and Russia are each a divorced parent, fighting over their only child. But, in the real world, their petty fight is costing real lives. And, we are setting ourselves up for a standoff with Russia, one that I don't believe we can afford to start.
This is not the first time that the US has stuck its nose into situations that we were not initially concerned with, but we felt the need to be a hero and save corrupt countries from their own turmoil. This was exactly what happened concerning the US's involvement in the Syrian conflict. I understand the US being a super-power and holding a lot of influence when it comes to sparking movements in struggling countries that they feel almost a responsibility to help countries that can't help themselves, however in this kind of situation past involvements in similar situations should have been recalled before the US jumped the gun. It is also important to understand Russia's presence in the war because as much as you try to make the US seem like the good guys helping the needy country, the US is actually seeking to take down essentially its ugly sister. Both the US and Russia hold substantial power in the international spectrum, however they hold very different perspectives on certain issues which have sparked cat fights against them in the past. Although, the days of simple hair pulling and name calling may be over and it is essential that the US realizes this before they dig a hole too deep that they cannot get out of. The US supplying the Syrian rebels with weapons is showing that the US has not yet come to the realization of what may be coming and I would not rule out the possibility of an all out war to come if these interactions between the two countries continue. Therefore in essence Syria was just another meeting ground for the two powers to quarrel once again. However, I do agree with the previous comments that the US should focus on domestic issues before involving themselves in the problems of other countries.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the first time that the US has stuck its nose into situations that we were not initially concerned with, but we felt the need to be a hero and save corrupt countries from their own turmoil. This was exactly what happened concerning the US's involvement in the Syrian conflict. I understand the US being a super-power and holding a lot of influence when it comes to sparking movements in struggling countries that they feel almost a responsibility to help countries that can't help themselves, however in this kind of situation past involvements in similar situations should have been recalled before the US jumped the gun. It is also important to understand Russia's presence in the war because as much as you try to make the US seem like the good guys helping the needy country, the US is actually seeking to take down essentially its ugly sister. Both the US and Russia hold substantial power in the international spectrum, however they hold very different perspectives on certain issues which have sparked cat fights against them in the past. Although, the days of simple hair pulling and name calling may be over and it is essential that the US realizes this before they dig a hole too deep that they cannot get out of. The US supplying the Syrian rebels with weapons is showing that the US has not yet come to the realization of what may be coming and I would not rule out the possibility of an all out war to come if these interactions between the two countries continue. Therefore in essence Syria was just another meeting ground for the two powers to quarrel once again. However, I do agree with the previous comments that the US should focus on domestic issues before involving themselves in the problems of other countries.
ReplyDeleteThis conflict is going to become my generations Vietnam war. Most Americans want to stay out of the Middle East and avoid future conflicts, but quite frankly, it's not our job to stand on the side lines. Our advances in military technology could be enough to tip the scale in Syria and should be used appropriately in order to overthrow Assad. In my opinion, this could turn out differently than Vietnam because the US has gained perspective and experience in dealing with power vacuums that will help us create a stable situation in Syria and make for a better Middle East for our allies in Israel to prosper in.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is moral to help those who are suffering and in need, the United States' involvement in other countries throughout the past few decades has not helped but hurt those countries. In my opinion, we need to stay out of these types of affairs, unless they are directly affecting us. However, this is a hard thing for the United States to stay out of, as we are a country with a lot of power and as many people think we should help. I do believe there are small ways to intervene that will positively affect people, such as donating supplies to a Syrian refugee camp. Arming the Syrian rebels with weapons is truly not something that should have been done; I do not think the government, and a majority of the people, realize what could happen. I believe that until we have all (or at least most) of our domestic issues sorted out, it is not right to get involved with the international affairs of other countries.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the biggest fan of Russia, but the fact of the matter is, the problems in Syria exist because of the United States. Our involvement with issues that we should have never gotten involved in are what created the conditions for this radicalism. What the US has been doing to Middle Eastern countries- including drones, occupations, invasions, sending people into exile, etc- is what spawned groups like ISIS and the Al-Qaeda. America is allied with countries, like Saudi Arabia, that indirectly support ISIS ideology. Russia is just cleaning up our mess. I commend Vladimir Putin for doing what America could not. It is unfair that so many Syrians, Assyrians, Armenians, Yezidis, Greeks, Kurds, etc. cannot live in their homes anymore. It is unfair that CHILDREN like Aylan Kurdi do not have a chance to live. Ancient sites are destroyed. ISIS needs to be destroyed and American ineffectiveness will not work anymore.
ReplyDelete