Radcliffe Takashi Onishi
Mar 28, 2018 · Last update 1 yr. ago.
What do you think could be a solution to the War in Syria?
What do you think for a solution in Syria?
Stats of Viewpoints
This conflict has become too complicated and bloody, and the US has held out for too long
1 agrees
0 disagrees
This is all part of a larger conflict that will need resolving for lasting peace to be achieved
0 agrees
1 disagrees
Should be U.N. intervention
0 agrees
1 disagrees
The international community should have aided Assad in return for democratic reforms
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Syria is probably the first war that was started by climate change
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
This conflict has become too complicated and bloody, and the US has held out for too long

The US has held out of a large scale offensive in Syria in an attempt to not repeat history and recreate a situation like Iraq or Afghanistan. The US’ stance under the Obama administration has been a self proclaimed failure. They cannot stand by any longer as countries with massive financial and military-territory incentives step into this void (Russia), and aid the proliferation of a regime that ignores human rights and commits war crimes. The US needs to rethink its strategy of just arming and training the FSA and enter the war with feet on the ground.

This doesn’t have to mean an offensive strategy directly, but a safe zone could be set up for rebels and displaced civilians. This area will give respite to Syrians fighting the government, but also give a safer space for refugees fleeing the conflict, allowing a greater number to be internally displaced rather than adding to the alarming number of international asylum seekers. And it will also allow the US to not have a direct hand in the war and potentially repeat the failed military attempts of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Following Donald Trump's surprise turn around on the issue of Syria, the planned US withdrawal from Syria could send the conflict into further chaos with other outside forces likely to fill the US size gap, and possibly doing so with further conflict. With this in mind if the US will continue as Trump has planned, backing a greater establishment of buffer zones should become priority. But considering the numerous forces at play in Syria and strong words from Turkish President Erdogan, the US may have a hard time establishing a successful buffer or withdrawal, and a further involvement may still need to be made in order to secure a viable military exit from Syria.

america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/29/report-jordan-will-set-up-buffer-zone-inside-syria.html aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/withdrawal-syria-region-181223131305616.html nytimes.com/aponline/2019/02/05/world/middleeast/ap-ml-syria.html

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 12
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
The US has held out of a large scale offensive in Syria in an attempt to not repeat history and recreate a situation like Iraq or Afghanistan. The US’ stance under the Obama administration has been a self proclaimed failure. They cannot stand by any longer as countries with massive financial and military-territory incentives step into this void (Russia), and aid the proliferation of a regime that ignores human rights and commits war crimes. The US needs to rethink its strategy of just arming and training the FSA and enter the war with feet on the ground.
This is all part of a larger conflict that will need resolving for lasting peace to be achieved

There are many ethnic, religious, economic and civil rights issues that have made the Syrian civil war so long lasting and complicated. But, when you consider the number of ISIS insurgents, the war is arguably an overspill from the Iraq War and part of the Saudi and Iranian proxy conflicts, sometimes call the Middle East Cold War. These issues will need to be addressed and dealt with, as will the problem of extremist groups that operate in this area that have further exaggerated the suffering and further complicated this conflict.

However, when you consider the presence of both the United States and Russia, backing opposing sides of this conflict, comparisons have been draw between the Syrian Civil War and Cold War era Germany. The opposing involvement of these same two aggressors in multiple proxy wars internationally, including the above mentioned Saudi and Iranian proxy conflicts, is a similar diplomatic landscape to the Cold War.

As the US moves to withdraw from Syria the country should recognise the apparent similarities to historical conflicts and attempt to not engage Russia in further proxy conflicts. Likewise the US should admit to their failings in Syria in regard to operations to further destabilise the country, such as Timber Sycamore, and attempt to not repeat those mistakes in further complex diplomatic situations, for example in Venezuela. Finally, the US should take further care not to be involved in confrontations that destabilise regions seeking diplomatic solutions over military ones.

aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/syria-beginning-cold-war-180422075430047.html

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 12
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/syria-beginning-cold-war-180422075430047.html
Should be U.N. intervention

International organisations such as the U.N. and NATO should tamp down fighting in Syria and bring an end to a war. Syrian forces are violating their promise of an immediate cessation to fighting. The U.N. should take all appropriate measures to punish countries that are supporting terrorism and bombing. In addition, if the U.N. doesn't prevent the tragedy of a further increase in victims, we should call into question their raison d'etre.

Bashar al-Assad decided to violently subdue the forceful strive for democracy in Syria in the name of state stability. Civilian deaths could have been minimised by earlier action. The UN’s mission should be questioned, and the ability to veto actions should be removed as it denies the UN ability to function in circumstances such as this. We have seen this occur in this very case, when in 2012, Russia and China vetoed the UN taking action in Syria, thus prolonging unrest and violence.

Now that it has gone too far and descended into civil war for so long, Assad needs to be ousted and democratic elections held under the watchful eye of the UN. It’s time for the UN to change tact and a UN peacekeeping force to intervene. The full UN PKO forces could be as great as 100,000, a number that could easily be used to even to just threaten involvement, in the sake of a peace agreement being signed. The UN has attempted to broker ceasefires and failed, chapter 7 article 42 of the UN charter needs to be enacted so that they can use force to help end this proxy war that has become too long, bloody and complicated.

nytimes.com/2012/07/20/world/middleeast/russia-and-china-veto-un-sanctions-against-syria.html?_r=0 un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 12
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Bashar al-Assad decided to violently subdue the forceful strive for democracy in Syria in the name of state stability. Civilian deaths could have been minimised by earlier action. The UN’s mission should be questioned, and the ability to veto actions should be removed as it denies the UN ability to function in circumstances such as this. We have seen this occur in this very case, when in 2012, Russia and China vetoed the UN taking action in Syria, thus prolonging unrest and violence.
The international community should have aided Assad in return for democratic reforms

With the onset of violence following wide scale protests in 2012, Assad should have been aided to stabilise the country by the international community. But this should have come at the cost of a diplomatic agreement, whereby democratic reforms would take place, under international supervision. Then, following country wide stability, the possibly that Assad's regime would oversee the ceding of power to a democratically elected party could have taken place peacefully.

Regardless of Assad’s position and background, he did aim to reform Syria and failed, with the release of political prisoners and the establishment of free press in his early years as leader. The international community should have offered support to Assad in return for further attempts at reform, rather than standing back to observe the situation and hoping for the deposition of Assad. Helping an enemy reform a country should take precedence over watching a descent into violence in the hope that this enemy will be removed. Avoiding war and violence should be of more importance than anything. And minimising this should happen from day one.

Now that the government forces have been involved in multiple war crimes, peaceful international diplomatic intervention involving the removal of Assad is less likely. As the US became the first international force to pull out of this conflict, it is now left to Russia to oversee the return of relative stability in Syria, making the chances of true democratic reform non-existent. Moving forward all sides (including the international community at large) should back the old government until stability is reached, in return for an open free democratic election to be held, but with the added complication of war crimes this opportunity may have passed.

bbc.co.uk/news/10338256

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 12
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Now that the government forces have been involved in multiple war crimes, peaceful international diplomatic intervention involving the removal of Assad is less likely. As the US became the first international force to pull out of this conflict, it is now left to Russia to oversee the return of relative stability in Syria, making the chances of true democratic reform non-existent. Moving forward all sides (including the international community at large) should back the old government until stability is reached, in return for an open free democratic election to be held, but with the added complication of war crimes this opportunity may have passed.
Syria is probably the first war that was started by climate change

Before the protests in Daraa, the Damascus Spring, and the beginning of civil unrest in Syria there was a devastating drought from 2006 until 2011 in the country. This period saw the large scale migration of poor working class people from the Syrian countryside to larger cities such as Damascus, Hama, Aleppo and Daraa. While not the sole cause of the conflict, this mass migration coupled with other large socio-economic problems fuelled the 2012 protests and arguably form the initial cause of the war.

The history of conflicts surrounding water as a resource goes back to at least 2500 BCE, but water is gaining an increasingly common role in warfare and political disputes [1]. The drought in Syria, is a modern example of this, where it is thought to have had the worst water shortage in this part of the world in thousands of years between 2006-2011. The worst hit parts of the the country were in the northeast, were nearly 75% of arable farmers suffered total crop failure and most pastoral farmers lost around 85% of their livestock [2]. This not only left over 800,000 Syrians with no livelihood but also contributed massively to food insecurities within the country.

As well as the countryside population fleeing drought, there was also a massive influx of Iraqi and Palestinian refugees that had fled fighting in their home countries but ultimately joined the rebels in the fight against the government. There have been long history of conflicts surrounding water scarcity and economic problems associated with water shortages, the mismanagement of this and the massive displacement of people often leading to conflict. Regardless of the outcome of this war, there is likely to be more war and conflict because of this massively misunderstood and complex issue.

[1] worldwater.org/conflict/list [2] climateandsecurity.org/2012/02/29/syria-climate-change-drought-and-social-unrest independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/climate-change-key-in-syrian-conflict-and-it-will-trigger-more-war-in-future-10081163.html

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Feb 12
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Before the protests in Daraa, the Damascus Spring, and the beginning of civil unrest in Syria there was a devastating drought from 2006 until 2011 in the country. This period saw the large scale migration of poor working class people from the Syrian countryside to larger cities such as Damascus, Hama, Aleppo and Daraa. While not the sole cause of the conflict, this mass migration coupled with other large socio-economic problems fuelled the 2012 protests and arguably form the initial cause of the war.
Translate