Should the U.S. Intervene?

Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the use of force to stop a ‘mass atrocity.’ For years, humanitarian intervention has been a sensitive issue in the United States and other powerful democratic states across the world. Currently, the United States must decide whether or not to use humanitarian intervention within Syria. I believe the United States should not use humanitarian intervention within Syria because there are too many political and practical in the way of successful intervention.

At the moment, Syria has powerful allies that could prevent the United States from a successful intervention. Not only does Syria have Iran as an ally, but also two permanent members of the United Nations (Miller). Iran proves to be a greater threat to United States humanitarian intervention than the other allies. Iran and Syria are close, strategic allies; Iran has already provided significant support for Syria in the Syrian Civil War. Seeing that the United States and Iran are enemies, humanitarian intervention in Syria could cause more trouble between the United States and Iran. Some argue that intervention in Syria could prove to Iran that the United States is more powerful with nuclear weapons (Klein). However, there’s always the possibility that Iranians see the need to accelerate their nuclear program.

            The United States must consider whether or not it has the military capability to successfully intervene in Syria. Also, is the United States willing to pay the costs and commitments of military intervention in Syria? I do not think the American people would support the costs. In fact, a 2013 Reuters poll found that only nine percent of Americans support military intervention in Syria (Tate). When the United States intervened in Somalia, Americans did not expect to lose troops on a humanitarian mission. As a result, the American people were outraged and wanted the troops pulled out (Hseih). The United States should not intervene in Syria because most of the country is not willing to accept the costs of military intervention.

            Most importantly, the United States should not intervene in Syria because it does not have a clear goal. The United States administration has said that the goal of intervening in Syria would not be regime change (Tate). What is the goal exactly? To have a successful intervention, there must be clear objectives and a precise exit strategy. The 2003 Iraqi intervention was initiated without clear objectives or an exit strategy; the Bush administration is still paying the costs of this decision (Hseih). Since the United States is lacking a clear goal for humanitarian intervention in Syria, it should not intervene.

            It is difficult to watch what is happening in Syria. Although the United States may feel it has a moral obligation to help those who are suffering in Syria, it is within our best interest to not intervene. The political and practical problems previously mentioned show that intervention should not occur until a clear goal has been set and the American people are ready to endure the costs of intervening.

Works Cited

Hsieh, Anne. "When Should We Intervene?" When Should We Intervene? Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Klein, Ezra. "The Five Best Arguments for Striking Syria — and the Best Rebuttals."Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Miller, Aaron. "Too Many Obstacles Stand in the Way of a Syrian Intervention." US News. U.S.News & World Report. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Tate, John. "11 Reasons Not to Intervene in Syria - Campaign for Liberty." Campaign for Liberty. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.