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.
I agree with Kyle's stance on looking at point sides of this situation. Though the United States may not personally gain anything at home from intervening in Syria, there could be many lives of Syrian civilians that are saved. However, saving these people may end up in the deaths of American soldiers. Personally, this is where I go back and forth on the topic, additionally, Syrian civilians may also be hurt or killed in US intervention as the area could become much more dangerous. Overall, I think Kyle makes a great point at looking at both of these viewpoints when examining how the US could create a positive outcome by intervening in Syria.
ReplyDeleteI think Kyle did very well for looking at both sides of the argument because it shows how one can be open minded. If the U.S. were to intervene, they should do it because people are dying, not because of the deadly weapons they use. Even if some soldiers may die, it is a small price for the life of many innocent civilians that did not choose to enter a conflict. They truly do not have a say in what happens to them. The lives of innocent people should be protected. If the U.S. decides to intervene, they should do it in a way that it would spare civilians.
ReplyDeleteKyle I liked how in your first paragraph before even getting into who’s side you are on you said both sides of the arguement and then you went to explain your view on this by using Larson and Jose’s views. I liked how you picked two different viewpoints that were different from each other but you could still tie them together like you did in your last paragraph. Like you I see both Larson’s point about not intervening if the United States does not gain anything and Jose’s point about how we should intervene because of all the people that are being killed there. I personally agree more with Jose’s point then Larson’s point an s think we should do something to help them but don’t think it directly have to be with the military or if it is then it shouldn’t just be the United States along, maybe something like the United Nations with the United States leading the United Nations would be better so it’s not just on the United States alone to try and help directly like that. Overall you did a great job comparing and making your points about both sides and I agree with you mostly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kyle's argument that the United States should not be involved in Syria unless they have the ability to protect the civilians form attacks by there own government. The comparisons that you made and stating how many troops that it would take to intervene in Syria would be too much and the risk of lost for the US would be too much for us to intervene.
ReplyDelete