Recent air strikes
 |
Since 2011 Syria has been launched into the Civil War led by many level Rebel groups including such as Free Syrian Army, ISIS, Al-Qaeda and pro authoritarian Assad troops. Originally United States stayed relatively neutral in Syria, because Assad has strong alliances with Russia. In 2014 United States started launching attacks against ISIS in the Iraq and Syrian region and carefully avoided Assad forces [1]. However, a land mark event has occurred that may mark a change in the United States’ level of involvement in Syria. Thursday evening presidents Trump launched 59 tomahawk missiles into Syria onto an Assad controlled air field [2].
 |
|
The United States informed many
foreign and allied states ahead of their airstrikes; including Russia.
Russia claims that Assad did not launch chemical attacks, rather Assad forces
launched attacks on rebel factories and strongholds that were hoarding chemical
weapons. [4]
Politically this is bad for Assad
and his forces; now they must be cautious when conducting further
military action, because now the United States has set a precedent now that it
may police the region.
This may be a political victory
for Trump because it minimizes recent allegations that claim he has dangerous
ties with Russia, also this event may showcase him in a morally good light.
However, if Assad is proven not to have been involved in leading chemical
strikes then it can lead to increased tensions between Russia and the United
States.
A U.S. defense official called the
U.S. strike a "one-off" [2]. Liberal
media outlets have expressed concerns that this may be the early signs of the
United States posturing for an all-out military effort in the region while
conservative news outlets seem to be celebrating the airstrikes as an American
moral victory. The truth of the matter is that no one knows for sure how we
will look back on this event in the future.
-Ibrahim Khan
[3]http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-04/at-least-18-dead-and-dozens-injured-idlib-gas-attack-in-syria/
I hope this isn't a case of premature action, and that no information comes out regarding Assad's innocence in the chemical attack. And no matter what, I hope our reactions aren't centered on championing American morality, but out of heartbreak for the reality in Syria.
ReplyDeleteWell put. I think its incredibly unlikely that Assad didn't drop the chemical weapons, so there should not be much to fear on that end. But getting on our moral high horses leads to the kind of blind passion that supporters of the Iraq war may have had.
DeleteVery well put, I think I overstated the claim that Assad might not have orchestrated the chemical attacks.
DeleteRegardless, this eerily reminds of "Weapons of Mass destruction" and the "Baby killing incident" from the first gulf war. I truly hope these airstrikes where motivated ONLY by the use of chemical weapons and nothing beyond that.
Either way, the toppling of Assad could lead to the occupation of Syria by ISIS
DeleteI hope the initial good press President Trump has received does not encourage him to keep launching air strikes.
ReplyDeleteThe tenuous uncertainty of military action means that we may not be able to predict the president's future choices of action.
DeleteI also hope that this won't eventually lead to any kind of conflict with Russia, which could lead to a lot more problems in the future.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting perspective I’ve encountered regarding these developments is how Trump’s official involvement is engaging rightist media in portraying the troubles of Syrians (in the context of their civil war). Trump himself has offered the death of innocents (e.g. children) as grounds for the coordinated missile strike. Perhaps the greater publicity of the chemical attacks (their toll on noncombatants) has stirred compassion from even the most conservative or isolationist of viewers.
ReplyDeleteThe uncertainty if the Assad regime has full responsibility for the chemical attacks has me worried about the international fallout that may happen if indeed Assad is truthful about his denial of any wrongdoing in this terrible incident. The UN tried to pass a resolution to investigate the attack, but it was vetoed because some of the language of the resolution could have allowed for military intervention instead of strictly investigating the incident in a non-violent fashion. It is concerning that there may be some hidden intentions behind this.
ReplyDeleteSeems like a random thing for Trump to react so strongly to. Yes, the chemical tragedy was devastating, but the whole civil war has been devastating as well. Maybe this was Trump's first chance to take his stand.
ReplyDeleteOlive McKay