To me the most logical answer to this question is: "We don't intervene in Syria because (Cold War Term) of Sphere of Influence. Syria is Russia's sphere of influence. Iraq is now considered U.S. Sphere of influence so Russia won't involve itself in Iraq for this reason. To some degree Russia and the U.S. still adhere to Cold War rules of engagement to prevent the end of all life on earth and of earth itself and always have since they were hammered out during the 1950s and 1960s except during emergencies like the Cuban Missile Crisis which almost ended all life on earth then. Ukraine is another Cuban Missile Crisis in the making at present.
Begin quote:
Why does the US intervene militarily in Iraq but not in Syria?
| CNN | - |
(CNN) -- Since Islamic State fighters entered Iraq from Syria, they have given the world a revolting look at their ruthlessness.
Why does the U.S. intervene militarily in Iraq but not in Syria?
updated 6:25 PM EDT, Thu August 14, 2014
Will ISIS attack the West?
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Islamic State cruelty has fumed in Syria, too, along with government atrocities
- But complex entanglements would make it more difficult to act there than in Iraq
- In Syria, the government would fight against the U.S.; in Iraq they are partners
They have left the
severed heads of their vanquished on spikes. They have filled mass
graves with the summarily executed. They have slaughtered and enslaved
ethnic minority Yazidis.
When the Islamic State drove tens of thousands of them up mountains, where many died of thirst, it seemed the last straw.
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes to beat them back.
U.S. to expand military role in Iraq
How U.S. forces deliver aid to Mt. Sinjar
But the same cruelty has
fumed next door in Syria -- along with the atrocities committed by
forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad against rebel fighters.
Iraqi refugees fleeing ISIS
While the world focused on the plight of the Yazidis in Iraq, 500 Syrian civilians died practically unnoticed.
Humanitarian crisis unfolding in Iraq
So, why is the United States intervening in Iraq, while avoiding Syria?
The answers lie in some clear differences in the two conflicts:
1. International opposition
No nation protects Islamic State. Even al Qaeda is disgusted by its viciousness.
But international political entanglement awaits any power pondering action in Syria, due to loyalties to al-Assad.
As the United States and
its allies have called for action against his regime, China and Russia
have put their foot down in the UN Security Council. And Russia has kept
al-Assad well-armed.
Although Russia rails
against Muslim extremists, a U.S. intervention -- even only against
Islamic State -- would meet with deep distrust in the Kremlin,
especially after the relationship with Washington hit the dustbin over
Ukraine.
Iran, a close al-Assad
ally, would likely also be up in arms. Tehran is allegedly supplying
Shia militia Hezbollah, which has crossed from Lebanon to shore up
al-Assad's troops.
2. Confusing battlefield
Syria's war is a
checkerboard battle -- government troops and Hezbollah in a fight
against Islamic State and other resistance groups, who also battle each
other.
Obama doesn't see a
strong partner in the politically fractured Free Syrian Army, because
it's hardly a formidable force against al-Assad's professional army.
In Iraq, the battle lines are clearer -- the Iraqi government with U.S. support vs. Islamic State.
Baghdad has made a shaky
showing against the militants. But in the north, Washington has a
strong, loyal partner in semi-autonomous Kurdistan.
Many of the U.S.
advisers deployed to Iraq are stationed in its capital Irbil to support
Peshmerga troops in hot confrontation with Islamic state.
Photos: CNN's 'Scenes from the field'
3. Ineffective airstrikes
How the Iraqis can defeat ISIS
The Syrian government
has professional air defenses, including its own air force, which would
give the U.S. military serious resistance.
Photos: Iraq under siege
Though Islamic State has struck some aircraft, its air defenses are flimsy when compared to al-Assad's.
The Iraqi government was
bombing Islamic State long before U.S. drones and warplanes joined
them, and the Kurdish government has begged for U.S. air support.
President Obama has
approved targeted strikes in Iraq, but his hawkish critics in Washington
have called for much tougher U.S. military action against the Islamist
extremists.
4. We broke it. We fix it.
It's a moan often heard
in the United States these days. Iraq would not be in this predicament,
had U.S. forces not invaded and destabilized it. Morally, the country
owes them.
Add to that the American
and civilian lives lost in the war to depose former dictator Saddam
Hussein, the hundreds of billions spent, the training and arming of
Iraqi forces.
The U.S. has no such vested interest in Syria.
But, says CNN analyst Fareed Zakaria, that's a stance Washington can't afford to maintain.
"The United States
should develop a more cogent and integrated policy approach that deals
with Syria and Iraq together -- the challenges in both countries are
becoming more interlinked," he said.
5. A wariness to step in
To be sure, the President's stance has its critics.
Republican Senators John
McCain and Lindsey Graham want Obama to take the fight against Islamic
State into Syria. Respect for its borders take a back seat to stopping
the extremists, they say.
Former U.S. Ambassador
to Syria Robert Ford resigned in protest of America's inaction against
al-Assad. He has found fault with Washington for allowing Islamic State
to burgeon in Syria.
And former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said that the President does not apply U.S. might aggressively enough.
But, after pulling the
country out of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the President has said
that the United States should be leery of trying to solve the world's
crisis.
As he has reportedly said, "Don't do stupid stuff."
No comments:
Post a Comment