US intervention in Syria

Salois|Page 1 of 4
Why the U.S. Should Intervene in Syria Apart from the Humanitarian Crisis
By: Kirsten Salois
Introduction:
The Civil War in Syria is coming up on six years since it began in March of 2011, and to date
from what the United Nations can estimate there have already been nearly a half a million deaths
and over eleven million Syrians displaced. Current President Bashar al-Assad has deployed
chemical weapons on his own people and proven that he will stop at nothing to win this war.
Apart from this humanitarian crisis many wonder what the United States can have to gain from
military intervention in the region. Citizens look at the outcome of the 2003-2011 war in Iraq and
believe that intervention in Syria will, one lead to the unnecessary deaths of American soldiers,
and two by declaring war on Assad be declaring war on Russia by association, bringing up
flashbacks of the cold war for many. While these concerns are valid we must also think of what
we have to lose by not intervening.
With Assad gaining the support of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, we can assume that
without U.S. military intervention the current Syrian government will win and Assad will remain
president. The problem with this is, with Russia supporting Assad we can assume that once the
rebels have been defeated that Russia will gain an even stronger foothold in the Middle East. As
well, prior to the onset of the civil war Syria was on the verge of an economic surge,
transforming their trade market and increasing their oil production. Intervention could also help
shape how the U.S. views Syria in regards to terrorism. The U.S. has seen Syria as sponsors of
international terrorism, and through military intervention, we could not only change the way the
future Syrian government views terrorist groups, but we could also form relations that would
allow for intelligence sharing. Intelligence sharing would give us an advantage in the current war
on terrorism. Finally with a brokered peace we can set Syria back on this path towards prosperity
and gain influence in their trade markets. However, this will only be achieved if that peace is
found through rebel victory. Helping the rebels could also gain the United States a greater
influence in the Middle Eastern region.
Russia’s Underlying agenda and its Impact on the U.S.:
Most of Russia’s past expansion efforts can be attributed to their geopolitical handicap. Due to
the loss of Ukraine in the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia is mainly landlocked apart from the
Baltic coast. Russia’s extreme climate conditions have also made many of their waterways
unattainable because many of them are frozen (Valenta, 2016). This handicap is the reason for
Russia’s involvement in Syria. While Russia can hide their involvement in the Syrian civil war
behind fighting off the threat of Russian jihadists to Russia’s national security, the truth is that
Russia’s involvement stems from a fear of loss of influence and power. Since the fall of the
Soviet Union Russia has taken a huge hit; not only have they lost Ukraine but with it the power
of their Navy (Plakoudas, 2015). They lost waterways, coastlines, and ports, which crippled the
Russian economy post Cold War. Currently Russia rents warm water naval port Sevastopol from
Ukraine, but Ukraine’s leader Yuschenko has mentioned not renewing the lease when it is up in
2017. This would make Russia’s naval port in Tartus, Syria the last foothold to the
Mediterranean (Buckley, 2012). This would mean that despite what Russia might say, that Tartus
is merely a place on the map to stop to replenish supplies and make repairs; Tartus serves much
more significance in the fact that it is the sole naval base in the Mediterranean since the end of
the Cold War (Plakoudas, 2015). If the authoritarian reign of President Assad was to end most

Salois|Page 2 of 4
likely so would Russia’s Middle Eastern influence and their foothold in the Eastern
Mediterranean.
Russia seeks to regain the status of a first-class superpower that they lost after the fall of
the Soviet Union and Putin understands that this can only be achieved through the acquisition of
the heartland (a region roughly the size of the former Soviet Union). Russia’s role in Syria can
be explained by Putin’s goal of transforming the international system into a multi-powerful
world, one in which the United States no longer operates unilaterally (Plakoudas, 2015). While
Putin’s stakes in Syria are high because of Tartus, the underlying actions of Russia’s
involvement in Syria can be tied to their desire for Russia to regain the status of a world power
that they had lost with the fall of the Soviet Union. This can be seen as a problem for the United
States. While much of the world stills sees Russia as a superpower the fact of the matter in
regards to threat to the U.S. Russia has not been one since the end of the Cold War. However,
since 2008, many newspapers such as The Washington Post and the Washington Times have
noted that under Putin Russia possess a serious threat to our interests as well as the interests of
our allies. Putin has legitimized relationships with authoritarian leaders in the Middle East and in
2014 invaded the Crimean Peninsula and seized the Ukraine territory as one of its own (Klimas,
2015). For these reasons it is important that the U.S. deter Russia’s power grab. One way in
which to deter Russia’s influence would be to intervene in Syria, because if we risk Assad
wining this war we also risk Russia’s influence in the Middle East growing substantially
fortifying their superpower status. Putin is a threat to the U.S. and our policy goals. Since Putin
took charge the Russian economy has grown six-fold only hitting setbacks after U.S. sanctions.
Because of this economic prosperity support for Putin has grown and despite recent setbacks due
to U.S. sanctions Putin has been able to maintain popular support by making the people believe
that the Western Nations, primarily the U.S., are to blame (Landis, 2010). Putin has made the
U.S. out to be the biggest threat to Russia to the point that most Russians believe that we could
strike at any moment. At the moment the only real threat Russia is to the U.S. is their nuclear
arsenal, in other war technology we have Russia severely outnumbered, but this is in large part to
Russia’s economy after the fall of the Soviet Union. Under Putin the economy began to flourish
again making them a potential threat in years to come (Landis, 2010). If the U.S. has any chance
of keeping Russia just out of reach of the technology they would need to match ours we will
have to limit their Middle Eastern influence and hit them where it hurts by eliminating their
foothold in Syria and therefore their only military base in the Mediterranean.
Other Contributing Factors:
While I believe that Russia’s influence in the Middle East serves as the primary threat to the
United States, there are other important factors that constitute intervention in Syria other than
stifling Putin’s grab for power. Due to the location and diversity of Syria, the U.S. has often
associated Syria with tolerance for terrorism (Sharp & Blanchard, 2011). However, if you look
past the regional context deeper into the root causes of terrorism you will see that by targeting
unemployment and repression in Syria you can combat the roots of terrorism. Terrorism doesn’t
stem from a region or a religion, but through a large perception of social or political injustice.
These injustices just so happen to be tendencies set forth by repressive authoritarian regimes
found in Middle Eastern regions such as Syria. By setting up stable governments that will allow
the people to participate in their government and by helping stimulate their economy and
creating jobs the influence of terrorist groups will subside because they no longer have a hook to
get people to participate. However, since these conditions even in a democratic society cannot
improve over night it is in the U.S.’s best interest to support Syrian rebels so that the post-civil

Salois|Page 3 of 4
war government will be willing to ally with the U.S. and engage in intelligence sharing. This
would help the U.S. fight terrorism not only coming from Syria but also neighboring regions like
Iraq and Iran.
Currently due to the civil war in Syria neighboring counties such as Turkey and Qatar
have taken in the brunt of refugees. By intervening in Syria we can alleviate the refugee crisis in
neighboring countries as well as improve U.S. relationships in Turkey and Qatar. Due to the
abundance of resources such as oil in Middle Eastern regions such as Syria, Qatar, and Turkey,
by fortifying these relationships we can make economic gains in the oil sector. Syria while of all
the Middle Eastern countries does not produce the most significant amount of oil they also due to
their poor economy and infrastructure do not have access to the necessary technology to
maximize their oil production. Displaying leadership in Syria during their time of need could
allow us to enter into a mutually beneficial deal where we help them maximize oil production by
aiding with development of necessary technology and they compensate the U.S. with oil. While
intervention has its benefits there are many risks as well, to the point that some believe it would
be better to help broker peace in the form of negotiation. While this might result in less lost lives
for everyone involved, in the long run a negotiation will prove to have been a waste of time.
Why Not Negotiate:
Right now the focus seems to be on negotiation. With ceasefires in the works, I believe that the
world outside Syria believes that negotiation would be the best option. While the notion of a
negotiated settlement has been the preferred method to end civil war since the 1940’s because of
its ability to quickly stop the bloodshed on both sides, in the long term has proven ineffective in
establishing and preserving peace (Toft, 2010). In fact, a report found in the journal of
International Security (2010) conducted a study where all civil wars from 1940 to 2007 were
examined for long term peace and economic prosperity. The study consisted of 137 civil wars
and showed that over a period of twenty years, civil wars ended by a rebel victory experienced
the most economic stability and least amount of reoccurrence in civil war. While five years after
the civil war those that ended in negotiation showed the highest polity scores and GDP per capita
growth, by 20 years these effects had significantly decreased while the effect of rebel victory
significantly increased showing that in the long term rebel victory proves to be more promising
for a nation's economy and freedom then a negotiation (Toft, 2010). Therefore, in the case of
Syria, while a negotiation may end the bloodshed and stimulate the economy, these effects would
only be short term. As well, when people think of negotiation as a solution for the civil war in
Syria they are assuming that President Assad will negotiate, which based on his current actions
and status in this war is unrealistic at this point.
To display the potential benefits of military intervention in order to support a rebel
victory we can look at Uganda for example. Under Amin Uganda’s GDP declined 25 percent and
their polity score was a -7. However, after Museveni’s ascension to the presidency in 1986 the
new government promoted legitimacy and fostered political participation (Toft, 2010). Uganda is
now praised internationally for their openness and economic liberation. By the end of the war in
1986, Uganda’s per capita GDP was just 58 percent of what it had been at independence, but this
improved to 69 percent by 1994 and 80 percent by 1997 (Toft, 2010). Therefore, a negotiated
settlement where President Assad would be allowed to have a political role in the post-civil-war
Syrian government would in the long term be detrimental to the nation’s preservation of peace
and economic stability. In respects to trade and economy it would be best for not only Syria but
for the U.S. to make sure that Assad’s regime does not continue.
Conclusions:

Salois|Page 4 of 4
While there are definitely reasons not to intervene in Syria such as potentially declaring war with
Russia, and risking the lives of hundreds of American lives. Aside from these risks the potential
gains and the necessity to subdue the potential threat of Russia outnumber the risks. Intervention
would allow us to hit Russia where it hurts the most, as well as help us gain a stronger foothold
in the Middle Eastern region. Leadership in Syria would allow us to gain an advantage in the
fight against terrorism as well as the potential for serious economic gains. While there are a
multitude of reasons not to get involved there are just as many reasons to get involved. More
importantly intervention could put an end to the bloodshed and save hundreds of thousands of
lives. So while the humanitarian crisis may not be a strategic reason for intervention it is a large
contributing factor.
References
Buckley, C. A. (2012). Learning from libya, acting in syria. Journal of Strategic Security, 5(2),
81-104. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.5.2.5
Klimas, J. (2015, July 21). Military leaders name Russia as top threat to U.S. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/21/military-leaders-name-russia-top-
threat-us/
Kramer, D. J. (August 18). Russia is now a threat. The U.S. should treat it like one. Retrieved
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/08/18/russia-is-now-a-
threat-the-u-s-should-treat-it-like-one/
Landis, J. (2010). THE U.S.-SYRIA RELATIONSHIP: A FEW QUESTIONS. Middle East
Policy, 17(3), 64-73. Retrieved from
http://library.franklinpierce.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/7566
75930?accountid=37705
Plakoudas, S. (2015). PUTIN, ASSAD, AND GEOPOLITICS. Middle East Review of
International Affairs (Online), 19(3), 34-40. Retrieved from
Sharp, J. M., & Blanchard, C. M. (2011). UNREST IN SYRIA AND U.S. SANCTIONS
AGAINST THE ASAD REGIME *. Current Politics and Economics of the Middle
East, 2(3), 437-463. Retrieved from
Thompson, L. (2015). Why Putin's Russia Is The Biggest Threat To America In 2015. Retrieved
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/01/02/why-putins-russia-is-the-
biggest-threat-to-america-in-2015/
Toft, B. M. (2010). "Ending Civil Wars: A Case for Rebel Victory?" Retrieved from
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20031/ending_civil_wars.html
Valenta, J., & Valenta, L. F. (2016). Why Putin Wants Syria. Middle East Quarterly, 23(2), 1-17.
Ziadeh, R., Hadar, L., Katz, M. N., & Heydemann, S. (2012). CRISIS IN SYRIA: WHAT ARE
THE U.S. OPTIONS? Middle East Policy, 19(3), 1-24. Retrieved from

US intervention in Syria

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to US intervention in Syria

US intervention in Syria