A Syrious Issue

A territory engulfed in total war. Land ravished by death and violence. Barbaric groups fighting one another in hopes of grabbing more land.

Widespread destruction in Syria. Photo

This doesn't sound like something that could happen in the modern world, but more like the happenings of Medieval times or actions akin to those of the Romans. Unfortunately though, this is the reality that Syria is forced to endure. A reality in which violent extremist groups are emerging and a reality where Syrians are killing Syrians. The extent of the crisis in Syria is almost hard for us to comprehend. Not even I could believe just how dire the situation was while I was researching it.



You may also expect the U.S. to intervene on a grand scale with all our military might. This, again, is not the case. But don't start drawing conclusions just yet. Perhaps one of the most crucial reasons you don't see America invading Syria like we invaded France in WWII or Kuwait in 1991, is that American's, simply put, have had enough.

Many Syrians lack basic essentials, like food and shelter. Photo

As The Atlantic affirms, the U.S. goes through cycles of interventions. For instance, at the start of the cycle, we may intervene in a foreign land for security or humanitarian reasons, like we did in Kuwait to oust the Iraqis. Then the American public becomes decreasingly tolerant of the monetary and human cost of our intervention. Then, we don't want to intervene for a while until we feel pressured by moral concerns or security interests.

Unfortunately for Syria, as The Atlantic points out, Syria is in a bad place at a bad time. Americans are tired of our continued efforts in the Middle East which have cost thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars. This is, of course bad news for Syrians wishing to flee to their war-torn homeland in search of refuge. In fact, the U.S. has accepted around 12,000 refugees since the start of the conflict in Syria in 2011, which doesn't sound like a lot when you realize 11 million Syrians have been displaced.  The U.S. really only started to accept these people after "Barack Obama made the commitment under pressure from Europe and the United Nations for the US to play a bigger role in confronting the global refugee crisis," according to The Guardian. This further proves how Americans are weary to get involved, after years spent in the Middle East.

Syrian refugees. Photo

However, don't think that America is just standing by—despite our lack of ground forces, the U.S. is sending hundreds of millions of dollars of aid and a slew of technology to help remedy the conflict.

Since 2011, the U.S. has given nearly $6 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to Syria, including a $364 million expenditure in September 2016. This money helps the UN and other organizations bring basic provisions to those in need, such food, water and medicine. This huge expenditure of money is a step in the right direction, as around 13.5 million people are in need of humanitarian aid in Syria. Personally, I support the U.S. funding of these humanitarian efforts because I feel we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. 

But we aren't just sending money. We are sending American might in the form of airstrikes to wipe out extremist groups like al Qaeda. Just last month, in January, The New York Times reported that an American bomber aircraft killed more than 100 al Qaeda fighters in a training camp in Syria. Extremist groups are taking advantage of Syria's state of complete chaos. Still, the U.S., although not on the ground en masse, is waging war from the air in an attempt to stabilize the region. 

Smoke from an airstrike in Syria. Photo

Unfortunately, like the drone-strikes I wrote about in an earlier blog, airstrikes can cause civilian casualties. The principal argument against our use of air power in Syria is that collateral damage is too likely with the enemy in such close proximity to innocent lives. These airstrikes have killed hundreds of people and the U.S. isn't acknowledging them, according to The Guardian. This has led some people to wonder if our use of technology in the skies is ethical. 

Ultimately, I think our humanitarian aid and use of air power are effective ways of helping the ailing country of Syria. But what do you think? Should we send more money? More airstrikes or a ground invasion? I want to hear your thoughts!

Does Iraq Still Like Us?

You've probably heard of President Trump's travel ban. If you haven't, just know that it temporarily denies entry for 90 days people from the countries of Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Somalia. These countries are known to be sympathetic to terrorists and other people who wish harm on the United States, but is the ban hurting our hard fought diplomacy efforts? This is not a simple question. But let us have a look into reasons why someone might oppose this ban.

The seven countries affected by the ban. Photo: CNN.com

For one, the U.S. has fought, physically and politically to help diplomatic relations in the Middle East. It should be noted that one strategy for achieving success in the War on Terror is winning over the hearts and minds of the populace. We frequently see this with U.S. troops giving candy to children and holding councils with village elders in Iraq and Afghanistan. By connecting with the locals, U.S. troops show their mission is to help the people and not to destroy their towns.

A U.S. Navy Corpsman giving candy to local children. Photo: citizensreachout.org

Additionally, humanitarian and development projects help prove the U.S. good intentions in the Middle Eastern region. For instance, with the recent rise of the terror group ISIS, the United States' humanitarian efforts have been redoubled to meet increasing need. Among some of the assistance given are child protection activities, water sanitation, and hygiene services. Also to be noted are the hundreds of millions of dollars we give in foreign aid to Iraq alone.

So why is all of this important? Well, the United States has spent a lot of time and money invested in stabilizing the Middle East and helping the people who need it most. With President Trump's travel ban, some fear that all of the effort has gone to waste.

President Trump after signing the executive order. Photo: archinect.com

Of the most impassioned opponents for the ban are leaders of Muslim majority countries, specifically the ones outlined in the ban. According to one source, Iraqi government said it understood the security motives behind the travel ban but felt that the U.S. should have considered the "special relationship" between the two countries. Another statement from a popular Iraqi spokesperson called for the explosion of all Americans on Iraqi soil, even as thousands of U.S. troops are still stationed there.

These feelings are not limited to the leaders of Iraq. Many people want to leave the U.S. for a better life, just as Germans and Italians and many other people of various nationalities have in the past. Some of these people include those who have helped American troops and now live in fear of retaliation from terror groups.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. Photo: yahoo.com

 The feeling among many people, including world leaders, is that President Trump's ban is a "Muslim ban" or, at the very least, a "divisive" policy, as Britain's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson stated. Still, in an unexpected move, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi rejected pro-Iranian and other Iraqis suggestion of a retaliatory ban of Americans in Iraq.  He did this in favor of keep good relations with theUnited States as the two countries continue to eradicate the ISIS threat.

The travel ban is meant to increase security from foreign terror threats, but no people have been killed by anyone from any of the seven countries on the list from 1975 to 2015, although multiple arrests have been made for plotting terror attacks against the U.S. Opponents of the ban think these numbers are worth the negative consequences of the ban, while proponents value the preventive nature of the exclusion.

What do you think? Will President Trump new executive order tarnish our relations we have worked so hard for? Or do you feel that the U.S. is better protected with bans like the one President Trump has instituted? In any case, let's support the our president and wish he does the best for our country.