Conflict in Syria

Sergio A. Lopez

Professor Muck

PSC 222

21 October 2015

Conflict in Syria

            The international community has directed much of its attention to the Middle-East, exhausting whatever efforts may be feasible in containing the complicated conflict that has been ravaging the country of Syria for years. There is much debate at the domestic level of what global powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom should do in reaction to the Syrian conflict. Even more political debate spurs at the international level, as more of Syria’s surrounding nations begin to take what they believe to be appropriate steps for the preservation of their own safety, or interests. The United States in particular, however, has been tasked with the responsibility of acting as the hegemon of the world, meaning that perception has become critical in every motion the United States concerning the conflict in Syria. This means that the United States must act very cautiously in Syria, taking into consideration the attitudes of both domestic and international audiences.

            A critical factor that has played an important role in how the international community proceeds with the Syrian crisis is the growing power and influence of the terrorist group in the region that refers to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. The militant group has claimed responsibility for a significant number of terrorist attacks and terrorist attempts from all around the world. ISIS is also why the United States claims to feel there is a necessity for some kind of military intervention in the disturbed region. Currently, President Barack Obama has not gone so far as to deploying soldiers from the United Stated Armed Forces and engage in an open military assault, but he has instead diverted to using unmanned drone strikes as a form of action against the Islamic State. The Obama Administration has also sought the cooperation of other nations who might be willing to join the operation in similar ways to help contain ISIS and pressure the militant group into disenfranchisement. The President’s administration, however, has received heavy criticism back home from both average citizens and members of Congress for their current policy regarding the United States’ role in Syria. Members from both the Democratic and Republican Parties have claimed that the President’s policies have not been strict enough on the region. Much of the motivation for this tone erupted after the signed agreement between the Obama Administration and the Iranian government regarding the Middle-Eastern nation’s nuclear programs, which was perceived as an agreement that the United States could have better negotiated.

Similarly, political figures within the United States have stated that President Obama’s current policies in Syria are too weak, suggesting that the drones strikes have not been enough. The argument here is that ISIS still remains a powerful militant group, and that the resources that have thus far been exhausted in attempting to weaken the organization have failed. Conversely, there is also a strong opinion resonating within the United States that fears the nation has overstepped its boundaries, and that further involvement in the region only wastes resources that could otherwise be allocated elsewhere in the federal budget—particularly to domestic programs. The strong polarization between the contending opinions has left a vast majority of Americans feeling discontent and frustrated with the United States government as a whole, and a lack of support for the President’s administration has reached a higher level of concern.

            Taking into consideration the varying degrees of opinion when it comes to the interpretation of responsibilities that must be assumed by the United States, President Barack Obama and his administration have successfully proceeded with Syria very cautiously, and have managed to avoid significant conflicts with any involved nation. The United States has strived to obtain international cooperation from its allies in the United Nations, and it has successfully done so. Further, the United States has maneuvered its drone strikes away from both the Syrian government and its various opposition forces. Although not entirely exclusive from the opinions of the public, President Obama’s administration has assumed the responsibilities of foreign policy and has largely removed the mass public from its decision-making process. This has been a reasonable and justifiable approach by the President of the United States, and has proved necessary to deal with the complexities of effective foreign policy.