First of all, please note that this is not due until Friday, May 4!!
Now, considering our conversation on foreign policy and your independent review of the just war theory, propose an American foreign policy solution to the conflict in Syria. This will require you to read the article, "What is Happening in Syria?", attached here (under the Foreign Policy folder). Also, listen to the NPR story to gain further perspective. Finally, settle on one of the four foreign policy options shared in class (isolationist, etc.). Explain why we should adopt your approach using all you know about just war theory and the tools/players discussed.
The foreign policy option that I would choose in solving the conflict in Syria would be to use collective security (team player). I think working together with other countries will influence the Syrian government to find a workable solution to their conflict. I think this could even help other countries that are having similar problems help solve their issues as well. But if it comes to a point where the problem gets out of hand then other measures need to be taken. Because of the team player link we need to work as a team and help the weakest link become stronger.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should get involved by using the internationalism approach, better known as the “world policeman”. Abderrahim Foukara, along with President Obama, believes that this could potentially be the start of a civil war with the numerous reports of revenge killings between the Sunnis and the Alawi classes. It could also be seen as a revolution against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which doesn’t look very likely to work due to networks around the Assad family that dominate the security apparatus and the army and that some Syrians don’t want to participate due to their thinking that if Bashar al-Assad was to go, their future in Syria would be undermined. However, while I believe that the United States should get involved due to the number of people who’ve been killed to intervene, Russia and China say that the Security Council should not authorize the United States to get involved. I feel that the United States should intervene with the current issue in Syria and take Basha al-Assad out of his role in the government and attempt to convert them to Democracy. They should also be involved to prevent a civil war between the Sunnis and Alawi and protect the Syrians who feel that they’ll be attacked with Assad is taken out of his military control. Abderrahim Foukara stated that “the only country that can really lead an effort like that is the United States” and I think that’s a great start to getting other countries involved while taking the role as the “world policeman”.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should get involved with Syria would be the Internationalism method. I think this would be the safest solution for the United States, Syria, and Syria’s bordering countries. The United States needs to help because Syria’s, “neighbors [are] Iran and Israel.” Since the United states is already involved with Iran and Israel and is working hard to maintain the current status with them that we have to help out Syria too. The “world policeman” would be the best option because it puts the United States in a position to help Syria without putting us at risk. By risk, I agree with President Obama saying, “facilitate a more peaceful transition or a soft landing rather than a hard landing that results in civil war” Not only risking our own countries safety but, if we took the Imperialism approach that could lead to a war or as Obama also said “potentially even more deaths” I think the United states should intervene before a potential genocide occurs, although not everyone agrees. Maybe the United States doesn’t have to intervene right now but sooner rather than later. “Assad still maintains enough support to survive, but isn't totally safe” I think the United States should help before it isn’t safe and try to help Syria maintain safety.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the internationalism approach. I think that this is the safest way for the United States to prevent being a bystander. We would be the watch dogs making sure that American lives are not put at risk, but also to ensure that we would help implement things that need to occur in case the protests get worse. If Obama and Abderrahim Foukara believe that this may potentially lead to a civil war, internationalism is the safest approach, so we do not become a target or end up in the middle of the civil war in their country. Kind of being on stand by and safeguarding national security would be the best approach. I agree with Rachel, they should be their to take charge and the biggest thing they could do right now is take Basha al-Assad out of his job and try to convert to democracy. The article said, "Some, especially in the north, are likely Islamists demanding a greater voice." This would be a way to positively help the people their because they are in need of having a say in government to save lives so this begins with democracy.
ReplyDeleteIf the United States took the collective security or "team player" approach, it may make their problems become our problems. Though this may be the ideal image of how countries should lend a helping hand to other countries I believe that it is not the best approach to the protests and murders occurring in Syria. I do not think that Imperialism would be the way to go either. Acquiring their territory wouldn't be the answer in this situation. It wouldn't take the conflict causing the potential civil war away. I also do not think that isolationism is the way to go in fear that we become in a situation were we need help from other countries. We can't expect to get help from other countries if we have refused to give it to them when we are in need of help, which is why I believe that internationalism is the safest way to help.
I believe like Tim, that we should take the Collective Security approach when handling this situation. My first opinion was we should take the internationalism approach because the Syrian government was killing protestors. I feel like if we get involved single handedly, than that would create a lot of problems between the United States and Syria. It seems like a big job for just one country to handle and that's why working together with other countries would be the better choice. That way, Syria would see that not just one country is against the decisions that they are making.
ReplyDeleteIf the problem does not seize, than i strongly believe that we should take the internationalism approach. If we sit back and watch more people will die and the problems will not get resolved. America with the help of other countries should try to stop the corruption in Syria
I agree with people so far and believe that America should act as the "World Policemen" for this issue. Normally I would believe that we should stay out of other peoples business and let them sort it out on their own but this has gone on long enough. People are dying in Syria and we have the ability to stop that from happening. I think in this case it is our duty to do this for them. This is assuming that they want our help. If both sides of this conflict do not want us there then I believe we should not go in. Since we would be saving peoples lives this would be a just war. From reading the packet it seems that when all else fails and things need to get done this is the option to take. We should help them out and stop the killing.
ReplyDeleteThe policy that should be put into play should be either the imperialism approach or just full out isolation. Both policies are options for various reasons mostly involving American pride and reputation. The imperialism approach would allow to meet the problem head on and monitor the lands of Syria. We could act as a security and police force for the country. Although it would be costly to send more troops to look after Syria with the unsettled conflicts still lingering in other parts of the world. It would be an over extension of our troops and resources but if we do nothing our reputation as a world super power will suffer. Being in such close proximity to our ally Israel the conflict may spill into their lands as well. They have enough problems to solve and the last thing they need is a religious rebellion. The other option for America is just full out isolation. Though not the best option for our reputation, it would allow us to fix our own nations problems such as our weak economy. Plus it will give our countries armed forces some well earned rest after the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. But our American pride will probably not allow this option. The issue is a difficult one to place a policy on, on one hand we could get involved and on the other we could let what ever happens happen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with people so far and believe that America should act as the "World Policeman." This would be the best option because it puts the United States in a position to help Syria without putting us at risk. While I do think that the United States should get involved due to the number of people that have been killed, China and Russia think the Security Control should not allow the United States to get involved. Like Tyler said, if both of the sides do not want us there then we should not go in. From reading the packet, it seems like this is the most logical option to do, because this would help them stop the killing.
ReplyDeleteI think to resolve the conflicts in Syria would first to approach the conflicts with the Collective Security which is referred to the team player option. I think the United States should begin with this approach because it would allow us to oversee the conflict with other countries and get their opinions on what we should do to resolve the issue. This would allow us to possibly work together to resolve the conflicts and possibly influence the Syria government. However, if a decision cannot be made of how to resolve the conflicts then The United States must take the internationalism approach, also known as the "World Policeman". As Sam said, I do think we should get involved to because many innocent people are dying, however, President Obama believes this could lead us into war and we could lose valuable alliances. Russia and China do not agree with the United States getting involved. We should be carefully watching the conflicts in Syria and be ready to get involved, but we should not get involved until at least one of sides wants us there.
ReplyDeleteConsidering our conversation on foreign policy as well as the individual review on the just war theory, I think that an American foreign policy solution to the conflict in Syria would be the internationalism approach. I believe that the United States should not play the role of a bystander in this situation but instead should intervene in Syria's affairs to promote important national interest as well as to safeguard national security. I think that since President Barack Obama believes that the conflict in Syria might result in a civil war and possibly more deaths, it's the United States moral responsibility to intervene. In addition,Abderrahim Foukara also stated, " I think it does have an element of civil war." In order to prevent the various sects (Sunnis vs. Alawi) from killing each other,the United States should take a stand! Although the Russia and China security council has advised the U.S. to not intervene, I think it's worse to stand by and allow a country to suffer from a large number of deaths. Furthermore, Foukara states, " I think that the consensus in the region is that the only country that can really lead an effort like that is the United States." I believe that since President Obama is talking about it being premature rather then his previous flat out no, he is considering taking action which I believe is the right thing to do.I also agree with Rachel and that the United States should "intervene with the current issue in Syria and take Basha al-Assad out of his role in the government and attempt to convert them to Democracy." I think this would allow citizens to have a voice in the government which is extremely important and has the potential to save many lives, rather then being killed for protesting the government. Since “Assad still maintains enough support to survive, but isn't totally safe” the U.S. should intervene now before the safety of Syria is demolished. I think that the civil war should be waged as a last resort to re-establish peace but in the mean time, the United States should put effort forward to help prevent the problem from worsening.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone so far, America should get involved to help. We are in the neighboring countries and are helping solve problems over there. Like John said it would be costly to send more troops over. But it would be worth it to help them because of the amount of people that are being killed. I also think that other countries should also help so they will know that more people care besides us and disagree with the things that are going on. Reading the packet it seems like this would be the best option to go with, because they need to stop the killing going on.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the US should act with the internationalism approach. The people in Syria seem to be in a hopeless situation. Though the article stated that their leader did have popularity and many liked him, from the perspective of Americans, who live in a democracy, it seems like this Syrian government is quite controlling. The fact that Syrians cannot trust their government and seem to be met with violence for resistance efforts seems wrong. The Freedom of the First Amendment is not present in Syria which results in the fear that exists there for the people of different religions. Furthermore, I think internationalism is the best option because many, even kids are being killed or held captive by the government. The only drawback to this option is that Syria is next to Iran and if an ally were to form, the US would not want to be a target from Iran, since they are speculated to have a surplus of nuclear weapons. If many different countries (including the US) were to intervene and use the military to increase the safety of Syria, they can hopefully save some of the citizens there from falling victim to the government corruption. Also, according to the NPR broadcast which focused on when it is time to intervene, the UN estimates that more than 7500 have been killed by government. This large amount of slaughter of civilians is quite concerning and though not directly related to the US, is the moral thing to do. There is an uprising of Syrian citizen’s but they are armed which results in more violence. In this way, the US military or its Turkish ally’s need to intervene in the government to secure the Syrian citizens. Though Obama shot down this idea, he should make it a greater priority for intervention because it would most likely be effective since our military and presence would help resolve and revise Syrian government.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking a tie between the isolationist approach and the collective security approach. While it is very evident from reading the article that Syria isn't in a good position, I don't believe it would be the best idea to really get involved. At first I was hesistant to make a decision becuase protesters have been killed and I don't think that that is right, I feel as though if we were to get involved it would cause more harm than good. I also feel that if we were to go in an act as the policemen of the world, it would get really messy really fast. The United States isn't in good standing with much of the Middle East, and going in to try and help them would probably just result in war or violence. To stop the violence that is going on there by sending in more violence doesn't seem like a good idea to me. While normally I like the idea of collective security with other nations, I feel as though it would be best to not really get too involved with the situation in Syria. Another reason it might not be best to get involved is that the protestors don't even have a clear and consistant view of what they want to come of the protests, so by us getting involved we would confuse things, complicate it, and be another unnecessary factor making things potentially worse. I don't know what staying out would do for America particularly nor do I care too much, but I do believe that staying out of Syria would probably be the better decision to keep from hurting more people than are already being hurt.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the class that the United States should act as the "World Policeman" in this particular situation. I agree with Tyler that this issue has been going for long enough and that America should do what is required to help Syria but at the same time keeping our country out of any possible danger from it all. Like Sam and Tyler said, I agree that if both sides of the conflict do not want our country involved then we should not get wrapped up in it all and do as they say. A great deal of help could be provided from the United States being present but also could make the situation worse and could hurt more individuals in the long run. For that particular reason I seem almost undecided about it all, but as of right now we just remain spectators to the situation hoping it will deal with itself eventually.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the United States should act upon this issue using the internationalism ideal. The United States needs to act as a "world policeman" to help fix this issue in Syria. There has been so much talk in Syria and on NPR about different people groups looking upon this issue in many different ways. Some people refer to this as a revolt, others say it was started or influenced by terrorists, and other say it is part of a conspiracy. What is happening is a massacre by the government towards anyone who acts out or protests against the regime. The Syrian Government has stated, according to Professor Casey, that they came to a consensus that the United States is the only ally that could help. This then backs up how the US is a "world policeman," other countries go to the US for help. In 2005, the United Nations (UN) adopted the "responsibility to protect" which allowed for under certain circumstances, questions to be answered to see if military intervention is necessary. This clause looks for "just cause" situations to determine the matter. So we should adopt the approach of "world policeman" or internationalism, because we (the US) are who may believe can help. Obama and Abderrahim Foukara both agreed that these massacres could be the beginning to a civil war. The killings are happening as a punishment to revolting against the regime. What's going on is the fact that "Bashar al-Assad's government is killing protesters, tens of thousands of Syrians are on the march, and more demonstrations are flaring up daily." Where in the US, we have the rigt to petition and freedom of speech, where in Syria, they don't. It began with a small group of children ranging from years 10 to 14 and they were arrested for vandalism of "anti-regime" graffiti on a town wall, which is reasonable. However, the authorities did not contact the children's parents. The murders started on March 18 where government authorities killed six protesters. That Thursday, a large amount of people marched as a sign of respect to the victims. As a possible "internationalist" country, I believe that we should step in and fix this issue by filing in more troops to the Middle East. Russia disapproves of the US helping, they are an ally, so we shouldn't disobey our ally, however, we need to find a way for the US to be a "team player” or collective security, as they could join forces with other allies to bring down the head of the Syrian government who is allowing the killings of protesters, al-Assad.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the US should act with the internationalism approach. The people in Syria are stuck in a situation they can't get out of. The united states believed that the type of government in Syria was corrupt. Their government is very strict causing many people to be against their leader. They do not have any freedom as we have the first ammendment. Obama does not agree with their government and doesn't want to he involved. According to the NPR broadcast the UN estimates that more than 7500 have been killed by government, children included. If other governments took into consideration of the people killed they would want to be involved to help.
ReplyDeleteI believe that America should approach the situation in Libya with isolationism because their situation does not affect us and our country is not in the best economic shape. It is not necessary or the United States' responsibility to spend money and resources on every major situation that arises in the world. There is no specific goal of the protesters, showing a lack of organization of this struggle in Libya. If the United States were to get involved it would be counterproductive. Bashar al-Assad has been in power since 2000 and the people of this country do not yet know what it is they want to change under his rule. There is no possible way to help a cause that has no goal. If the United States were to get involved it would cause more drama than what Libya is already going through, with no results.
ReplyDeleteI believe that America should act on the issue in Syria as a part of a collective security. We should definitely take a large role in helping solve the problems they face in Syria, but do this along with a bunch of other strong countries. I dont think we should spend too much money on this effort because we are already in bad economic shape ourselves. I just think we should spend enough to aid their situation and other countries could pitch in as well. The protesters dont have a main goal through their protesting, so we shouldnt be too involved, but helping out a little could aid their situation.
ReplyDeleteI think the United States should get involved by the Internationalism method. The people of Syria are in a situation where they don't really know what to do or how to handle it. Their government seems to be very controlling even though it is said that the people of Syria liked them. However, if they do not want the help then the United States shouldn't stress about it. But since it has been occurring for a long time, I feel as if it is kind of America's duty to offer the help.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the United States should get involved in Syria by the "world Policemen" way (Internationalism method). The people of Syria are being put at risk of attacks and death. Although our country has no need to necessarily get involved in this issue, i think that morally we have a obligation to help countries who need help and cant stop horrible things that are happening to them.
ReplyDeleteAs many of my classmates have said, I too agree that the United States should get involved in the problem over in Syria. What is going on in the Syria government is a big problem and it is not right that so many people are dying and we as a country need to help. We need to act as the "World Policemen" also known as, internationalism. But I also do think that we should get together with other countries and inform them with what is going on so they too can help out, this is something that needs to stop, because it is something horrible that is causing many people from Syria to die.
ReplyDeleteThe United Nations doctrine of Responsibility to Protect states that when a state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities, the international community has a responsibility to intervene. The doctrine dictates that intervention must be peaceful at first, then coercive, then militaristic. The conflict in Syria can be described as a crime against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum. The Syrian government, under its emergency powers, is exterminating dissidents. Therefore, members of the UN are responsible for intervention. UN envoys have been pushing for a cease fire, and the government has ignored them. Violence continues. Members of the UN are now responsible for enacting economic sanctions on Syria. China and Russia are not likely to enact sanctions because Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers, and China exports goods to Syria. It would be economically damaging for China and Russia if they enacted sanctions, or if a regime change caused a decline in their business with Syria. Because China and Russia are members of the Security Council, I believe that the UN will not act against Syria to stop the violence. I believe that the United States would have to act outside the UN, alone or with other countries, if it were to try and resolve the conflict in Syria. I think that, based on UN policy, the United States, as well as other countries, has a moral responsibility to act because there is just cause as the UN puts the death toll at 9000 or more. The intentions are good- to stop the violence on moral, humanitarian grounds. I assume that there would be a reasonable chance of success given U.S. economic and military power. I believe that if Syrians are being killed by their government because they are protesting, then that gives anyone legitimate authority to stop the violence. The costs could be great. China and Russia would object to intervention (they already do). The benefits are greater though. Preventing the deaths of thousands is a big benefit. The United States should implement collective security, working with the Arab League, as well as any of our allies who are opposed to the Syrian conflict- or, like Israel, just opposed to the Syrian government in power. Turkey should not be subjected to war with Syria, so they ought to remain neutral for protection. If no other nations would help, the US would have to implement internationalism, though due to US-Syrian relations, that could look as if we were attacking Syria to accomplish our own agenda, perhaps to wipe out terrorists in the region. These consequences would be bad, but as Syria moves closer to civil war with the bombings that occurred today in Damascus, it may be the only option.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion of this matter, i believe that the internationalism approach is the best approach and the one that should be taken. I think its the appropriate and best way for the United States to take on this situation based upon how they present themselves in Syria situation. This would prevent the United States from being whats considered a bystander and by also ensuring the lives of our own citizens if things were to get worse.Abderrahim Foukara and President Barack Obama believe that this issue could potentially evolve into a civil war however, internationalism would put that issue to rest. i agree that they now should take down Basha al-Assad and remove him from his duties and provoke democracy. in result people will regain a say in the government once again like the "Islamist who demand for a greater voice". if the United States were to take another approach to this issue like a collective team player approach, then this would cause problems for our own country. Though we think that America is the helping hand that will always be there in a situation of need, using this approach would backfire substantially. Imperialism would not be a good option either because acquiring their land wouldn't really solve the problem. Their would still be the same type of threat amongst the citizens and the same potential for a civil war to break out. This is why internationalism is the best way.
ReplyDeletetalked to Mrs. Vivirito
Deletesaid was okay for the date