There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has recently avoided interfering militarily in Syria or providing the rebels with direct support, but admitted the presence of the Syrian opposition.
However, the U.S. has been criticized for its non-intervention policy, especially with the rise in the level of violence and the spread of conflict to other areas of the country, and even to its borders with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
The Syrian Crisis began almost three years ago. Since then, the killings, the bombings and the fleeing haven’t stopped. Obama’s administration was blamed for letting the Assad regime, which is an Alawite minority, tyrannize its Sunni people who are a majority, for all this time, and for allowing the radical jihadist power, a part of the opposition, to benefit from the uprising.
At the same time, there are many important domestic political concerns that justify Obama’s non-interventionist policy. But the use of chemical weapons, an issue President Obama tackled in his State of the Union address, impelled the U.S. government to take a serious position against the regime supported by both Russia and Iran.
Unlike the other Arab spring revolutions, such as in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, the Syrian Civil War takes a place of its own in today’s political world. It brought back the Cold War ghosts, and reasserted the tension between the U.S. and Russia, because a big part of the American policy in Syria is a result of getting in a direct confrontation between the two strong powers.
U.S. Policy in Syria
On one hand, the U.S. government needs to act in Syria to avoid the permanency of the ongoing conflict, by forming an alliance that assembles all U.S. partners to implement a no-fly zone. On the other hand, a U.S. military intervention is unlikely to happen since the U.S. cannot afford, politically or economically, an unsecured contribution to the Syrian war for an unpredictable period of time, especially after Obama’s foreign policy has been focused on ending all military involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. army hasn’t seemed to rest from the wounds of the two major past war, and veteran families were promised that military interventions will end, which makes the issue of intervention in Syria even more complicated for the U.S.
Moreover, nothing really secures a stable post-war situation in Syria. Even if the regime falls apart and Assad leaves, a national chaos will most likely dominate in Syria, because the Syrian people themselves don’t know yet what is best to come next, or what kind of regime should rule their country. Some are afraid that the extremist pro-Al Qaeda jihadist group might take over and make things worse with an Islamic state in Syria, which also threatens the rest of neighboring countries and messes with the balance of powers in the Middle East region....