Should the U.S Arm Syrian Rebels - Assignment Example

Should the U.S arm Syrian Rebels? Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad has been trying to regain control of some parts ofthe country held by rebels opposed to his rule. The Assad army has been carrying out aerial bombardments on civilian areas killing thousands of innocent people. Some of the regions that have witnessed heavy military operations since the start of the conflict include Aleppo and Homs. Some efforts to create buffer zones within Syria have failed, making disbursement of food and medical aid to victims difficult (Blanchard, Humud & Nikitin, 2b). External intervention in the form of weapons supply is, therefore, essential and justified in order to stop the widespread human rights violations in the country. The major global actors such as the U.S and Russia have different opinions on how long-term peace can be reached. The U.S. wants Assad to be removed from power, but Russia and its allies want him to continue serving as president. Diplomacy in Syria has partly succeeded and partly failed. Russia used its influence to make Syria ratify the Chemical Weapons Treaty and surrender its stockpiles for destruction. Russia and China have on a number of occasions blocked UN Resolutions that could have allowed international military intervention in Syria. The rivalry between these two major actors undeniably stemmed from the effects of Cold War. America started acting assertively in shaping global politics after the Cold War because it had no major rival (Lamy 42-43). If there will be a significant supply of weapons from external sources, it will probably come from the U.S. History has indicated that if America fails to intervene to save people in distress, no other country can commit itself to bring solutions. The U.S intervened in Afghanistan in 1980s by supplying weapons to the Mujahideen fighting the Soviet invasion, and the Soviet army eventually decided to withdraw from the country (Shank). The U.S did not intervene in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and the result was slaughter of nearly one million people within three months. United States has also not shown any interest of intervening in Somalia since its withdrawal in 1995, and the country has faced unending war with itself. The U.S should, therefore, keep on arming the Syrian rebels so that other countries can follow. External intervention in the form of arms supply would stop further human rights violations. The U.S should keep on arming Syrian rebels in order to maintain its influence in the course of some issues in the region. The U.S has been sidelining the Assad regime for quite some time. If the U.S stops supplying arms to the Syrian rebels, it will help the Assad regime to defeat the rebels. President Assad has nothing to offer to the U.S in the form of democratic reforms and reconciliation in Syria. Assad is already allied to the communist Russia Federation and China. The post-conflict era in Syria will, therefore, see the domination of the Alawites and suppression of the majority Sunni ethnic group. There will be no institutional and democratic reforms that the U.S wants to happen in the country after a long conflict (Shank). The U.S should keep on supplying weapons to the opposition side in Syria because it is the only country capable of sustaining supplies if the war takes longer than expected. The main aim is to protect innocent civilians and minority groups like the Alawites and Christians in the country. The move would stop the current human rights violations committed by Assad’s government and some opposition groups. The U.S made mistakes in its past interventions, but it should not be a justification of giving Assad the freedom to commit atrocities against innocent civilians. It is likely that the U.S learned lessons from Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, and would not repeat the mistakes it made by just supplying weapons to the opposition side in Syria (Blanchard, Humud & Nikitin). The U.S should not arm the Syrian rebels because of the deep divisions within the opposition groups. The opposition in Syria has no clear form of leadership or common goals of future leadership and reconstruction. The opposition again has no base within Syria unlike in Libya where the opposition had a strong base in Benghazi. The effect of arming opposition would remove Assad from power and instate a deeply divided opposition creating a situation similar to that of Somalia. Rebel groups in Somalia successfully overthrew Siad Barre but turned against each because they were deeply divided. The U.S should therefore stop arming the Syrian rebels in order to avoid creating a similar problem. A U.S-led intervention in Syria would cause an influx of Islamic extremists who are interested in undermining American peace efforts. There is a growing American hatred in the general Islamic world. The hatred was caused by some of the past mistakes in the Middle East region. If the U.S keeps on supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, it will put its own security at risk. The British and American invasion of Iraq in 2003 resulted in grave mistakes that contributed directly to the current instability in the country. The U.S and U.K relied heavily on exiled opposition groups who did not have major political influence among the Iraqis. The U.S removed secular officials from office and replaced them with exiled groups. Some of the secular officials removed by America did not have direct links with Saddam Hussein. The move fuelled ethnic divisions among the Iraqis (Cordesman, 2-3). The move can be related to the Syrian situation; the U.S can give the rebels sophisticated weapons capable of removing Assad from power but may end up putting some unacceptable elements of the opposition in power. The U.S should stop supplying arms to the Syrian rebels because the arms will likely fall into the hands of al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic extremists. In recent months, some of the moderate opposition groups seeking to overthrow President Assad have been unable to control the weapons in their possession. The al-Qaeda affiliated groups will likely seize the American-supplied weapons from the moderate fighters. The hard-line Islamic militants affiliated to al-Qaeda might then use the weapons to attack the U.S. There is no guarantee that the rebels will eventually overthrow President Assad from power. The issue of arming Syrian rebels will, therefore, help in increasing the stockpiles of weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda affiliated groups that are already active in the country (Blanchard, Humud & Nikitin, 9). The Syrian rebels opposed to President Assad have been acquiring small arms to fight the government. The presence of these arms poses major security issues that threaten future stability of the country. If the U.S keeps on arming the opposition so that they remove Assad from power, the country might end up becoming ungovernable because of the small arms and sectarian divisions. A similar situation happened in Libya in 2011when NATO forces helped the rebels in overthrowing Colonel Gaddafi from power. The rebels had a common goal of removing Gaddafi from power, but they differed in the country’s future leadership and reconciliation efforts. The rebels have made Libya insecure and difficult to govern. If the U.S keeps on arming the Syrian opposition forces, it may end up creating another Libya in Syria (Bennis). The U.S should stop supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition groups because the move will create a situation similar to that of Afghanistan. The U.S intervened in 1980s by supplying weapons to the Mujahideen, the jihadists who were fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although the U.S mission succeeded in the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, the move backfired. It gave rise to the Taliban in early 1990s. The Taliban in turn gave al-Qaeda a haven to carry out multiple terrorist attacks against the U.S and its missions in the Middle East and other regions. The U.S will likely create a similar situation in Syria if it continues supplying weapons to opposition groups (Blanchard, Humud & Nikitin, 8). The U.S should stop supplying weapons to the opposition side in Syria because it will escalate the conflict in the country instead of bringing it to an end. The opposition that the U.S is supporting has committed atrocities according to the UN and Human Rights organizations. From recent trends in the conflict, the government side has regained of areas previously held by the rebels (Blanchard, Humud & Nikitin, 9a). It is, therefore, clear that the rebels will not defeat President Assad’s forces in the civil war. Supplying more weapons will lead to further commitment of atrocities by hard-line opposition groups. The U.S should stop supplying weapons to the opposition side in Syria because it will risk putting itself in a situation that is difficult to get out. The move is already unpopular among the American public. The conflict in Syria is not an American war (Shank). Therefore, it will not serve American interests in the region. The U.S is already facing economic crisis; it has planned to reduce its defense budget by ending its military operations in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If the U.S keeps supporting the Syrian rebels by providing them with arms, it will enter into another costly war similar to that of Iraq. Works Cited Bennis, Phyllis. “No Military Intervention in Syria.” Antiwar.com. 2 August 2012. Web. 3 June 2014. < http://original.antiwar.com/phyllis-bennis/2012/08/01/no-military-intervention-in-syria/>. Blanchard, Christopher, Humud Carla, and Nikitin Mary. “Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response.” Federation of American Scientists. FAS, 5 May 2014. Web. 3 June 2014. . Blanchard, Christopher, Humud Carla, and Nikitin Mary. “Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S. and International Response.” United States Department of State. USDS, 14 June 2013. Web. 3 June 2014. < http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/211136.pdf >. Cordesman H Anthony. “American Strategic, Tactical, and Other Mistakes in Iraq: A Litany of Errors.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS, 19 April 2006. Web. 3 June 2014. < http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060419_iraqlitany.pdf>. Knickmeyer, Ellen, Abi-Habib, Maria and Entou Adam. “Advanced U.S. Weapons Flow to Syrian Rebels.” The World Street Journal. WSJ, 18 April 2014. Web. 3 June 2014. Lamy, Steven L.. Introduction to global politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Shank, Michael. “How Arming Syrian Rebels Will Backfire.” The Huffington Post. 8 January 2013. Web. 3 June 2014. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/how-arming-syrian-rebels_b_3689592.html>. Read More