US & Syria: Different Song, Same Dance

The United States is far from the isolationist state it once claimed to be before World War II, and with its self asserted role as a global police force there are many people to serve and protect. Our newest child to be taken under our wing and freed from the tyranny that governs them is scenic Middle Eastern country of Syria. The Syrian government has been in our cross hairs ever since they crossed President Obama's "red line" by using chemical weapons against their own people. Fortunately, Obama was saved from reneging on his promise to send in ground troops by reaching an agreement through international institutions and cooperation from other allied nations to remove the chemical weapons and sanction the state. However the situation has only worsened in Syria as ISIS and numerous rebel forces fight for control over the broken state. The US has decided to take action.

The approved military action for Syria is to train and arm the rebels that we side with, who claim to fight the Islamic State, and support them with strategic airstrikes. We have seen this tactic before used time and time again, with a fairly poor track record for success. Thank god we got rid of those evildoing Soviets in Afghanistan in the 90's, and installed a proper government figure like Osama bin Laden. Oh wait... we installed Osama bin Laden who then became public enemy number one organizing terrorist attacks against the United States. The problem with vicarious nation building is that its essentially a craps shoot to see if they end up turning on us or becoming a viable ally in the region. All it takes is one misplaced smart missile to hit the homes of an innocent unsuspecting families to turn that friend into an enemy. And with the US using drone air strikes like they're playing a live action version of Call of Duty, this outcome isn't very unlikely. But with the alternative being American soldiers with boots on the ground, it seems like much less of a gamble.

The new issue according to a report published by the Washington Post, is that the US does not trust these newly trained rebel fighters to pursue an offensive strategy. The official instructions are for these freedom fighters to protect and defend the towns and cities that have already been liberated or have stabilized without ISIS presence. Clearly the US does not feel that these hastily trained civilians using high powered weapons should be trusted in the heat of battle. With Iraqi troops constantly laying down their weapons in the face of danger, I don't blame them for having doubts. But Syria is simply not having it. The Syrian National Coalition, the only recognized (and therefore legitimate) government force in this state is claiming that rebel forces are on the offensive everyday and insist that the only way to defeat ISIS is to get out there and defeat ISIS.

You have to be able to appreciate the tenacity and sense of national pride the Syrian people have, to want to defy professional international opinion and just get into the dirty heat of battle with some of the most ruthless killers in the region. With that being said, I don't think theres much we can do to stop their campaign to take control of their once functioning state. The only problem I do have with this Syrian charge into battle is that they're demanding US ground troops for backup. Luckily the US is really sticking to their guns here with no plans for ground invasion. Pentagon spokesmen went on record to say "the train-and-equip program would seek to strengthen appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition to enable them to counter ISIL" and stick to a strictly defensive position. The bombs will continue to fall from the sky, taking out safe houses, strong holds, and even a symbolic ISIS flag planted at the top of a hill, but the boots will stay home. This is just a classic wait and see approach to let ISIS and the rebel fighters tire themselves out as neighboring international forces do all necessary heavy lifting. Turkey is one country in particular with a stake in this fight as it neighbors Syria and has a lot to lose by having the Islamic State controlling things.

This brings to question the idea of legitimacy and failed states. The US refuses to recognize anything controlled by the Islamic State, even when it is arguable that they are a growing global force. The international community does not like this rogue state and is therefore violating Syrian soevrignty and getting themselves involved. But I guess sovereignty doesn't matter if you're fighting for freedom and healthy nation building that global community United States can get behind. And if there are neigboring countries with much more invested in the removal of ISIS, why can't they take the lead on this? Why do we wish to continue to spread anti-American sentiment all over the US while gaining few allies and exponentially increasing our enemies? Train-and-equip is the farthest involvement I see with the US and Syria, and for all of our sakes I hope that is the position President Obama and the Pentagon maintain throughout this bloody campaign.


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/10/23/syrian_rebels_oppose_new_us_war_strategy?wp_login_redirect=0


- Garcia