Elaine Hang
Professor Shirk
International Relations
22 October 2015
Reap What You Sow
The United
States should be putting more effort into resettling Syrian refugees rather
than increasing military intervention. This strategy would be more beneficial
for the United States, because it would be less costly and would improve the
image of the US.
The United
States has failed to take responsibility for the devastation it has inflicted
because of its military operations in Syria. The US military intervention has
destabilized the Middle East for the last 20 years and forced millions of
Syrians to flee the country. There are at least three actions that the United
States contributed the Syrian civil war: destabilizing Iraq, arming “rebel”
soldiers, and bombing the areas where members of the Islamic State are
stationed.
However, the US
cannot afford to increase military involvement in Syria. The cost of addressing
the root causes of the Syrian civil war and the rise of the Islamic State is
high. Already, the total cost of military operations in the Middle East is between $4 trillion and $6 trillion 2014. Rather than spending more money and
time in Syria, the US should work with its allies and focus on funneling its
resources to resettling Syrian refugees. The US would join and split the burden
with 30 other countries who promised to take in Syrian refugees. In fact, it
would cost the US about $4 billion to resettle 266,000 refugees, which costs about
the same as year-long airstrikes against the Islamic State.
Not to mention,
the United States has a history of resettling refugees. In the late 70s and
early 80s, the US resettled about 150,000 Southeast Asian refugees annually.
The rate at which the US resettled Southeast Asians refugees was much faster
than the rate at which it has been resettling Syrian (1,500 in the last 5 years). The US demonstrated its strength
against the communist regime in Vietnam by putting forth a narrative that the
US is the beacon of democracy. Therefore, by welcoming more Syrian refugees
while decreasing military involvement, the US can counteract the narrative of
the US as an enemy the Islamic States presents in order to breed terrorism.
The United
States must be held accountable for displacing the local populations in Syria. The
best way for it to do so is to increase the number of Syrian refugees it will take
in and use its substantial resources to resettle them. Since war in Syria is costly
and also unwanted by most US citizens, the US should be leading on the refugee
crisis because it would be a better strategy to counteract the Islamic State’s
attempt spread terrorism within the region.
Interesting from a soft power perspective...
ReplyDeleteYou are skeptical of stopping the flow of refugees beacuse of cost. What do you think it would take to do this effectively?
I agree with your position that U.S. military involvement should stop and that more emphasis should be placed on helping to relocate refugees. However, I also think there are other, more diplomatic steps that the United States can take toward resolving this issue. The recent nuclear deal that the U.S. made with Iran is important for future negotiations to occur between the two countries. Iran is one of Syria’s allies, and is therefore a useful partner in resolving this conflict. I believe that with a concerted effort, the U.S., Iran, and other Syrian ally Russia can reach peace settlements. There is the potential for small ceasefire zones to be created with the possibility of their expansion over time. But these are just my own ideas. In your opinion, if the U.S. is to use its diplomatic powers to help Syria, what actors should it try to reach out to if not the Assad regime directly?
ReplyDeleteDo you think the U.S. should take in refugees to our country or pressure others to take more in? Should there be negative consequences for closing boarders to refugees? And how/who makes the decision to either take in more refugees or more strikes against ISIS?
ReplyDeleteI think it should definitely not be just the responsibility of the U.S. to take in Syrian refugees. More European states should be volunteering to help. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been allowing refugees into Germany recently, and other states should do the same. Especially because it's much more practical to have refugees travel through connected land into Europe as opposed to crossing the Atlantic to get to the U.S..
ReplyDeleteThis was a very thought provoking article. I was unaware of just how big of a hand the United States had in the crisis in Syria. After reading your article I do agree with you and believe that it is the duty of the U.S. to help to resettle many of the Syrian refugees. Not only because we are part of the reason they are refugees in the first place, but also because, as you said, it will help to boost the reputation of the U.S. which is currently very low with many foreign states.
ReplyDelete