Going back material from earlier in the semester, we see that conflict is usually the result when states have competing interests. The prisoner's dilemma is an example of how war prevails over civilized peace agreements more often than not. What we see in Syria is a scenario in which peaceful settlement is next to impossible. In the blog, "Political Violence at a Glance", Barbara Walter looks at civil war and the four themes that contribute to that conclusion. 1: Civil wars last 10 years on average . 2: The more factions, the longer the war. 3: Most civil wars end in decisive military defeats. 4: Most settlements include a segmentation of power among competing interests which might cause more serious problems than a central stabilized government. USA Today shows an article highlighting the difficulties in the basic function of offering humanitarian aide in the face of 13 rebel groups.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/25/envoy-un-syria-appeal-has-made-little-difference/3189471/
http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/
Syria has over 13 factions competing for power and some cultural differences that make settlement almost out of the question. As a realist, and someone who does not believe that interventionism is effective at promoting peace, I believe that Obama should withdraw US interest from the war. As cultural imperialists, the US seems to take a significant role in such conflicts historically, but one might say that our interactions with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea have had questionably successful outcomes at best. Lets shift to the ideas of capitalistic peace and promote free trade and commerce to create healthy global inter-dependency. The cost of our involvement in these wars have cost America billions over the years and threatened our economic wellbeing.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/13/al-qaida-leader-callsforeconomicattacksonus.html
Although increasing democracy and implementing the capitalistic peace could lead to long term stability and security, it is an unlikely solution to the current Syrian conflict (and possibly unattainable after a major civil war). Civil wars often lead to a significant economic downturn where production facilities need to be rebuilt, major urban areas need to be reconstructed, and human capital need to begin increasing. Civil Wars significantly reduced and diminished the possible production curves of a nation, and more importantly decrease the difference the nations current production level and steady-state of capital level (which consequently equates to economic growth). Inevitably, this could potentially be reestablished after a long period of development, but the short-term responses of the public could not respond rapidly to this and this could just increase instability in the region. This is because returning fugitives, rebuilding major production facilities and transportation systems, and reestablishing a large population could take decades to achieve.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the US response should continue to protect and represent US interests within Syria and potentially be prepared for intervention. As of July 2004, the World Bank reported that the United States committed $661 million for over 20 different economic operations within Syria. Not including some international private industries that affect the world economy. Thus, while it may not be popular, regional stability is extremely important for international economic stability. Therefore, the United States probably cannot avoid the Syrian conflict because it represents an international economic and moral conundrum.
As the Hegemon the US is brought into conflicts like this. I believe that a settlement is possible with Syria, mainly because of Russia, and the UN security council. This conflict could serve as a way that these two permanent Security council members interact with one another. Neither side wants to be drug into a conflict, being that we would be fighting one another. To me this makes me think that cooperation in this case is very possible.
ReplyDeleteUS intervention in Syria was more than and remains to be due to other reasons than the chemical attacks and their international "obligation." Syria is one the largest oil producers in the Mediterranean region and this was an opportunity to get behind a new government that could be more cooperative with Russia. Instead of letting free trade and capitalistic peace have their way with the state, the US is looking out for its interests. At this point in the conflict it would be economic suicide to cut ties with Syria and basically give up on the region. Looking at US involvement as being for moral reasons cannot be substantiated when Syrian rebels are committing similar brutalities to the Assad regime. Reports have been out about rebels slaughtering Alawite towns, giving the US no reasonable backing.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Seth. I absolutely agree with almost every point you made. As seen in the past, the United States is clearly not the best at successfully intervening in civil war conflicts. The longer we attempt to help the conflict the more money the taxpayers are blowing. With our already huge debt the only thing we'll accomplish by sticking with attempting to resolve the Syrian conflict is raising our debt even more. While I doubt the United States will actually withdraw interests in Syria I think it's the best decision.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the US should avoid intervention as of now, I was completely torn as to whether or not we should take action when chemical weapons were involved. Although the US does not have a great track record for getting involved in other peoples wars, I do think we have some kind of obligation as a powerful force in this world, to take action when people are in need. Do I think we should get involved currently? No, however I do not think we should cut ties with Syria either, because I think it is unavoidable that we be somewhat involved now. I would hope that we could become less and less involved, and that world organizations would begin to step in and help so that the US can better get our own things in order, and Syria can begin to get sorted out.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great post! It is nice to hear a blunt opinion to the war in Syria. The Syrian war is a complete nightmare. For the international community and those within the country. My concern is for after the war, what happens when the fighting stops? Is it really possible for the fighting to come to a complete halt? If there are 13 different rebel groups with different sets of ideals can pose unthinkable problems for reestablishing the government and infrastructure. Then what happens to the chemical weapons? That is my main concern. I also think that is the one of the main concerns for the United States at this point. In a country that has terrorist organization activity and a completely unstable government (especially if a rebel group takes power), is it safe to leave large stores of chemical weapons in their hands?
ReplyDeleteI think you're right that the US has few public interests in Syria, and that any stated aims such as the desire to ensure chemical weapons removal, are better handled by international institutions. For instance, it is best to allow the OPCW to proceed with their international mandate. If anything this could only enhance the international community's information regarding the Syrian conflict, and hopefully contribute to a settlement due to the reduced capabilities of the Assad regime.
ReplyDeleteIt's very hard to win the domestic battle to gather enough support for intervention in Syria. Coming out of Iraq then Afghanistan and demanding military action to end what is happening in Syria is very unlikely. However this doesn't rule out other countries forming a joined air strike of sort to end what is happening in Syria. I just think that for the United States, I dont see them intervening.
ReplyDelete