The Syria Civil War has become “internationalized’ for several reasons destabilizing of the region, the displacement of millions of people, human right violations that have not been seen since World War II.
“The Syrian Civil War is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War, with over a quarter million killed, roughly the same number wounded or missing, and half of Syria’s 22 million population displaced from their homes. But more than that, Syria today is the largest battlefield and generator of Sunni-Shia sectarianism the world has ever seen, with deep implications for the future boundaries of the Middle East and the spread of terrorism (Gilsinan 2015)”. Since 2011 in the beginning of what is now called the “Arab Spring” …show more content…
My reasoning would be based on explaining the six basic principles “To justify military intervention, six principles have to be satisfied: the “just cause” threshold, four precautionary principles, and the requirements of “rights authority (Intervention pg 209)”. With regards to United States intervention in Syria; I believe most, if not all of the above principles have or could be met. So I would have to say yes, they would intervene. Their starting point would be the first principle “just cause” and yes the Syrians civilians facing serious threat again “yes”. Is there large scale loss of life, no doubt? This action is deliberate and state sponsored. Finally, there are acts of acts of terror and rape. The next principle is “right intention” are the intervening force going to stop the human suffering. The next precautionary principle is “last resort” is when all other types of intervention diplomacy, economic and non-military groups have found no common ground to continue. This leads to some type of military force. In the case of Syria many different groups have tried and failed at negotiating some type of cease fire or peace agreement all have failed. The third precautionary principle “proportional means” this looks at the military plan the scale, duration, and the intensity of the fight or combat that will ensue once hostiles start. With regards to Syria the coalition in my eye’s have not clearly been able to present this part of the plan for the world as of yet I do not think there is a comprehensive plan by our government either. The last principle “reasonable prospects” involves there should be a reasonable chance that the plan and actions will stop the suffering, and not make the problem worse. “Military action must not risk triggering a greater conflagration (Intervention pg 211)”. This last principle not making the problem worst is problematic I do not think the current
“The Syrian Civil War is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War, with over a quarter million killed, roughly the same number wounded or missing, and half of Syria’s 22 million population displaced from their homes. But more than that, Syria today is the largest battlefield and generator of Sunni-Shia sectarianism the world has ever seen, with deep implications for the future boundaries of the Middle East and the spread of terrorism (Gilsinan 2015)”. Since 2011 in the beginning of what is now called the “Arab Spring” …show more content…
My reasoning would be based on explaining the six basic principles “To justify military intervention, six principles have to be satisfied: the “just cause” threshold, four precautionary principles, and the requirements of “rights authority (Intervention pg 209)”. With regards to United States intervention in Syria; I believe most, if not all of the above principles have or could be met. So I would have to say yes, they would intervene. Their starting point would be the first principle “just cause” and yes the Syrians civilians facing serious threat again “yes”. Is there large scale loss of life, no doubt? This action is deliberate and state sponsored. Finally, there are acts of acts of terror and rape. The next principle is “right intention” are the intervening force going to stop the human suffering. The next precautionary principle is “last resort” is when all other types of intervention diplomacy, economic and non-military groups have found no common ground to continue. This leads to some type of military force. In the case of Syria many different groups have tried and failed at negotiating some type of cease fire or peace agreement all have failed. The third precautionary principle “proportional means” this looks at the military plan the scale, duration, and the intensity of the fight or combat that will ensue once hostiles start. With regards to Syria the coalition in my eye’s have not clearly been able to present this part of the plan for the world as of yet I do not think there is a comprehensive plan by our government either. The last principle “reasonable prospects” involves there should be a reasonable chance that the plan and actions will stop the suffering, and not make the problem worse. “Military action must not risk triggering a greater conflagration (Intervention pg 211)”. This last principle not making the problem worst is problematic I do not think the current