The viewpoints of Larson and Jose on intervention in Syria

Kyle Meyer

10/17/2017

There are many varying viewpoints on what the United States should do regarding intervening in Syria. Within current politics, many individuals discuss the positives of intervening in Syria, while others see the potential dangers and negatives of intervening. Individuals with viewpoints on the matter argue whether there are benefits to the United States intervening, saying that it may not be in the United States’ best interests to intervene. Individuals with an opposing argument may argue that the United States may need to intervene, mainly for reasons of international security, saying that the international community should step in and attempt to help. Two different viewpoints that I agree with are the viewpoints of Daniel Larson and Betcy Jose.

Daniel Larson predominantly argues that United States intervention in Syria would ultimately be detrimental to the United States and lead to no benefits within the United States. Larson discusses how the costs for the United States to participate in activity in Syria would outway any possible benefits from intervening. Larson further discusses how even without an Iraq-style attack, with the implementation of safe zones instead, it would still be extremely costly and dangerous to the United States. For these safe zones, if they were to be implemented in Syria, there would need to be tens of thousands of American troops deployed to these areas for many years. This could be very dangerous to theses troops, considering they will be in this war-torn country for many years, which could lead to many American casualties. These zones, if not protected well, are then seen by terrorist groups as a prime spot to attack these American troops as well as civilians. Larson then finishes his argument by stating that intervening in Syria. is very flawed, and that the United States has little to nothing at stake in Syria. I agree with Larson in this aspect that the United States should not intervene if they really do have nothing to gain from it. I feel the United States should only intervene if they are gaining something from it, and can have positive gains from it.

From an alternative viewpoint, Betcy Jose feels that the United States should intervene only to protect civilian lives within Syria. Jose feels that the United States should not want to intervene in Syria strictly because of Assad’s use of chemical warfare on its own civilians, but they should want to intervene because of the tremendous amount of civilian casualties within Syria. Jose feels that the other killings of civilians within Syria from Assad should have triggered a response from the United States, not just the killings from the use of chemical warfare within Syria. Jose feels that in dangerous times like these, all civilian lives should be protected, and that the United States should only intervene when civilian lives are at risk. I agree with this because civilian lives should not be lost at times where a corrupt dictator like Assad is going to extreme measures within in his own country.

These two varying viewpoints are similar in various aspects, which is why I agree with them. With Larson’s viewpoint, I agree with him when he stated that the United States should not intervene unless they can gain something from it, like protecting civilian lives. That is where Jose’s viewpoint comes in, stating that the United States should only intervene within Syria if civilians are put in danger, and a numerous number of civilian lives can be lost. I agree with both of these viewpoints, and they both show how the United States could positively intervene in Syria.    

U.S. Intervention in Syria Could Lead to An Increase in ISIS

Cam Hainey

Professor Shirk

International Politics

October 12^th, 2017

U.S. Intervention in Syria Could Lead to An Increase in ISIS

            From the readings and discussion from the U.S. intervention in Syria I agreed with Larison and Jose arguments and beliefs the most. We should be protecting the citizens them not only being killed by the chemical weapons being used by Assad but also the regular weapons that they are used to kill them as well. I agree with Larison with his idea that intervening in Syria has no interest for the United State therefore there is no real reason why the U.S. should intervene in Syria. I also think that we shouldn’t intervene in Syria because interventions usually don’t work out well for both countries involved, and having ISIS so close to this situation any failure could result in the ability for ISIS to take advantage and further grow as a more serious threat to the U.S.

If the U.S. intervenes in Syria for a Regime change like Stacey proposes I believe that not only would chaos like Heller say but also ISIS could benefit greatly from it. The U.S. hasn’t fully committed to an intervention in Syria but has been intervening, and supporting rebel groups by supplying with things they would need to fight Assad. If the U.S. decides to keep Assad in power and remove the chemical weapons he possess to protect the citizens and the U.S. Then they will need to tell the groups that they support that they need to end the fighting and accept that Assad is in power and the leader of the country. When they do that, there will be obvious push back from those groups who fought against Assad. They will not only hate Assad and the government but they will also hate the U.S., this hate that these few people/groups have, could open up opportunities for ISIS to recruit these people who already have a hate for America. I believe that by already supporting these groups we have created a connection, and if we tell them that they need to back off, there will be some who will then resent the U.S. and could be possible recruits that ISIS would go after. In my terrorism class last semester we discussed how actions that the U.S. take that have controversial outcomes, are used by ISIS and other terrorist groups as recruiting tools and ways to show that the U.S. is wrong and the enemy. Therefore I think that keeping a regime in place could be a possible breading grown and the perfect circumstances for ISIS to come into Syria and recruit.

I also believe that intervening and taking Assad out of power and bring in a new regime can possibly lead to ISIS becoming a larger threat for the U.S. This is because Heller says that when regime change occurs, chaos can break out. In Syria if chaos was to break out from the U.S. bringing a new regime then ISIS could sweep in and take advantage of the chaos, take control of the country and/or be able to recruit more people because of the chaos there. We have seen something similar in Iraq where there isn’t a stable strong government and terrorist groups have been able to gain power, numbers in recruits and land.

Overall I think that the best thing we can do in this situation for the benefit of the United States is to not intervene in Syria in any way that could possibly lead to any sort of regime change or support any groups that are against the current regime. The only intervention that should be done should be to protect the citizens from being killed by the government.

USA and North Korea: Having MAD?

Elif Okan
                                     USA and North Korea: Having MAD?

In class we talked about and questioned if Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) actually works and what the benefits to it can be. When looking into Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) a little more I found an article about North Korea and the United States. The article was written 3 weeks ago and it talked about how North Korea actually told the U.S. government that they want to establish a mutual assured destruction relationship with Washington after the two countries held informal talks shortly in January 2016 shortly after Pyongyang’s nuclear test. The article also talked about how the United States turned down North Korea's offer and said they cannot accept a deal like that. North Korea wanted the weapons pointed at both captails, Pyongyang and Washington, so they could avoid a nuclear war by having nuclear weapons with a capablility of retaliatory attacks. Also the United States' participants said that this "MAD strategy would not work like the relations between the United States and former Soviet Union during the Cold War, citing a gap in nuclear forces between the United States and North Korea." Reading this reminded me of the lecture we had in class about Mutually Assured Destruction and how it is best to have second strike capability and have the bombs pointed at cities instead of nuclear facilities so if you were attracked you would not lose your second strike capability and can fight back.

While Mutually Assured Destruction is a good stategy for countries with high levels of powers to have I agree with the article that it would not work between the United States and North Korea. Like it said, even though North Korea does have nuclear weapons, the amount they have is no where close to how much America has so Mutually Assured Destruction would not work between the United Staes and North Korea. North Korea also has their nuclear weapons illegally since the only countries allowed to have it legally is the United States, Russia, Canada, Britain, and France. There also is pretty much no other country that has the same amount of nuclear weapons as the United States but North Korea still has a lot less than the United States that would have a big effect if these two countries went to war. There is also the fact that North Korea hates the United States so North Korea cannot be trusted as well since you never know when they will turn or change their mind and break the deal. The United States also wants North Korea to be denuclearize so argeeing to Mutually Assured Destruction with North Korea would be like giving them permission to keep their nuclear weapons and saying it is okay for them to have it. Mutually Assured Destruction worked between the Soviet Union and the United States because in part they had a similar amount of weapons and because they both had too much to lose if they fired nuclear weapons at each other. While overall Mutually Assured Destruction works between most countries, I find it hard to see how it would work between the United States and North Korea.

Link for article:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/09/25/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/north-korea-sought-mutual-assured-destruction-relationship-with-u-s-in-2016-u-s-official/#.WeZxFhiZPVp

A World Going MAD

Caitlin Maloney

10/17/2017

A World Going MAD

         In current politics, mutually assured destruction is a hot topic, as North Korea continues to create threats against the United States, Japan, South Korea, and other states. Living in the United States, it is common to hear people voicing concerns about the nuclear warfare, especially after the recent election and inauguration. These worries have been seen around the world as people are fearing the worst from the ongoing verbal conflict between President Trump and Kim Jong-un. While no violent measures have been taken yet people can only imagine what could happen should the countries go to war. This is where mutually assured destruction comes into play, as both countries are aware that using nuclear weapons would likely result in the destruction of both countries as well as serious repercussions to the world as a whole, even potentially eradicating humanity.

     January 2016 marked a new era of potential nuclear warfare, as North Korea's capital Pyongyang hosted a nuclear test that drew against for many parts of the world. As stated in an article by the Asian Review posted September 24, 2017, shortly after this testing North Korea's Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Ja Song-nam, met with an informal United States contact in mid-January to discuss a potential mutually assured destruction relationship. This meeting was not disclosed to the public until recently when a former senior U.S. official released the information, stating that the United States participants told the ambassador, that a MAD strategy between the United States and North Korean would not work as there is a "gap in nuclear forces between the United States and North Korea" that was not present in the relations between the former Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War.

     This lack of agreement was also stemmed from the United States's strong stance that North Korea should be denuclearized in order to establish peace and stability in Asia. While these statements were made under President Obama's administration they still hold true under President Trump's administration, perhaps even more so. Referring back to the recent bluster between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, Trump has made it clear that North Korea should be denuclearized, especially after ongoing nuclear testing in Pyongyang. At a joint appearance with the Kuwaiti emir, Trump stated, "I would prefer not going to the route of the military but it is certainly something that could happen."

     While the United States has previously told North Korea it would not oblige in a mutually assured destruction relationship, it appears to be one of the last options between the two states. Along with proposing broad new sanctions and freezing the assets of Kim Jong Un, a MAD relationship would help deter the use of nuclear weaponry, thus creating a sense of peace between the countries and decreasing the levels of fear.

Whatever Can Kill Innocent Civilians is a Call for Help

The use of chemical weapons by a country makes the world angry. It has been portrayed in television shows, like the show ‘Newsroom,’ as Operation Genoa arose, which was inspired by CNN’s retracted coverage of Operation Tailwind which stated that the United States used nerve gas in order to kill American “defectors,” it generated many angry viewers and, most importantly, many unsatisfied allies. The emotions demonstrated on the show were a true reflection of the reality that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own citizens. But, what makes chemical weapons worse than any other weapons?

If a person is killed with any regular weapon or a chemical weapon, it doesn’t really matter how they died because they are dead anyway and their government is at fault. Yet the United States only intervenes if there was a usage of chemical weapons. Betcy Jose argues exactly this. While Jose agrees that chemical weapons should continue to be banned, she also thinks that there should humanitarian intervention because people are dying, and not because of the use of certain weapons. Assad has not been complying and has even killed innocent civilians like health workers.

Jose uses the example of President Trump condemning Syria for crossing many lines because of their use of chemical weapons and criticizes the President because he did not think that a photo of a “bloodied and dazed” child who had just been victim of a missile strike did not cross the line. Furthermore, Jose chastised the United States and its allies for not providing the ever-so promised safe haven for those who survived. She also believes that the fear of chemical weapons usage is not for the civilians but for the United States troops and it is a way to shield soldiers rather than innocent men and women.