Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Kevin's Current Event
Massacre in Syria
In February 1994, a crowded marketplace in Bosnia was attacked by a 120mm mortar, killing 68 and wounding over 200 others. In July 1995, over 8,000 Muslim men and boys were gathered and executed. Yet it wasn't until a third attack by Bosnian Serbs in August 1995, which used mortars again, that killed another 37 did NATO get involved and end the conflict. Last Friday, the Syrian government launched mortars at civilian homes and had people with knives execute people who survived the bombing. Over 100 people died, a third of which were children. People around the world are outraged that the world is letting the Syrian government continue these killings, as the death toll climbs over 10,000. One of the main reasons that the UN and NATO won't get involved is that Russia's last middle-eastern ally is Syria, and the last time the UN got involved, in Libya, there was a total regime change. Russia would lose a lot of money in weapons sales if the Syrian government is overthrown.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/29/world/meast/syria-sarajevo-and-srebrenica/index.html?iref=allsearch
My probing question is: Do you think US involvement in Syria fits into the "Just War Theory"? If not, what foreign policy tool should be used to handle the situation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the issues in Syria could support a just war, as it fits most of the criteria. We would have a good chance of success if we were to go to war with Syria, as they do not have such advanced technology and weapons as the US. We definitely have a good reason to invade, as war would be righting the injustices that they are committing and would protect Syrian civilians in the future. We would have Congress decide to declare war, so that fits the appropriate authority section of Just War Theory. I think that waging war tomorrow would not be appropriate because we have not tried everything at this point, so it would not be using war as a last resort. I think we need peace-talks in Syria and some economic, humanitarian, and military aid before considering war. Overall, I think that we could wage war against Syria, but we should attempt more peaceful methods of solving this problem first.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David. I do not think, as of right now, that this if the US got involved it would be a just war. There are still other options that can be done before using military action and going to war. Like David said, there should be peaceful talks in Syria about the killings. Also, military aid could be useful to the people in Bosnia so they can defend themselves. However, if these options do not work, then military force would be the last resort therefore making it a just war. The killings need to stop happening and if they don’t the US should get involved and help right this wrong. Overall, like David said, the peaceful options should be used first and if they do not work, then it is okay to use military force.
ReplyDeleteI think that in order to be a just war whoever is going to fight would need to use more foreign policy tools before using an act of war. There has been no mention of diplomacy yet. Diplomacy would possibly make every party happy. There could be a deal made with the Russians about some sort of sales (possibly not firearms) and hopefully Syria would accept and no one would intervene. Other countries could also provide military training to any rebellion force in the region that would try to overthrow the government, which wouldn't necessarily be going to war with Syria directly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above that going to war with Syria would not be considered just as of right now. I agree with David that other methods of ending the war would have to be used first in order for the war to be considered just, but as we have learned in class war is not always just. In fact, most wars are not just. In the case of Syria, I believe that it may be okay to go to war even if it isn't considered just because so many people have been hurt and killed in the killings. By going to war we would have the right intention which is to correct the wrong sufferings (in this case the killings), and we would be using comparative justice because we would be fighting such a large wrong doing. Overall, even though I agree with the comments above that the war could become just if we try all other options first, I also believe that some factors of the Just War Theory are more important than others and therefore I believe the war would be just either way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone above me. In this case involving Syria, I feel that American interception would be considered part of a just war. I think that the United States should get involved because: the attacks on the civilians is not proportional to the "harm", if any, they have caused, innocent lives are being destroyed, and the conflict is not contained in the country that it originated with. I agree with Alex, diplomacy should be used first before doing anything. If Russia, the United States, and Syria all come to some sort of agreement, that could perhaps stop the violence that has been going on across the country in Syria. Going into a war with Syria should be the last option.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all my classmates above. Right now in today’s world, I do not think that if the U.S. were to get involved it would be a just war. For it to be considered a just war, we must explore all options before we declare to use military action and enter into war. As David posed, we are supposed to talk to Syria about killings before executing any military force. Laura mentioned that military aid could be useful to the military in Bosnia. The military aid would help Bosnia to be able to defend their community. After all options are explored and they do not work out, than I believe it is okay engage with military action as a last resort. Doing it in this sequence, would justify it as a just war. The sooner these killings come to an end; the U.S. won’t get involved and be at fault. Overall, all other options, including peaceful conversation, needs to be tried before using military action.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all that has been said so far. By the current definition of 'just war', I do not feel that the United States has justifiable reason to enter Syria. Not all options have been exhausted by the U.S., and until those options are exhausted, war in Syria will never be 'just'. Like Laura Y. and David said above, the killings in Syria need to be discussed at length with Syrian people. Peaceful discussion would hopefully raise awareness about the injustice going on and would provoke nonviolent movements to stop the killings. On another hand, the defenseless people in Bosnia also need to receive aid in their time of need. The United States can provide military aid so that the forces in Bosnia can fight against the killings. I feel as though the United States needs to try more methods of aid before it can justify full fledged war. Along with war not being 'just', it would also be very unethical. The United States is still involved in other wars that have taken over a decade and are still not over. The supply of armed soldiers is dwindling and the moral of the country as a whole does not seem to support fighting another war. Overall, the combat in Syria does not, at this point, justify United States involvement. For war to be 'just', the United States must first attempt to solve the problems by other means, but until then, war isn't a very smart option.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David the most on this one. I do believe that U.S. involvement with Syria could definitely be supported by the Just War Theory. It fits most of the criteria for it to be considered "just". I can see at least five of the seven principles being met for this conflict. The only two that probably might not be completely met are the "last-resort" one and the "discrimination between combatants and non-combatants" one. The option for military force is not the last resort the U.S. can take. They could try to negotiate with the Syrian government or strike a deal with the Russians. These would be non-violent approaches that could be tried before taking more violent actions. If they were to fail, then the U.S. would have no other choice than to use military force. Another foreign policy tool they could use is military aid. They could provide weapons and training to rebels in Syria. This way the Syrians can fight their own battles without any U.S. soldiers getting involved. These are just some examples of policy tools that the U.S. can use to deal with this conflict in Syria without using military force. So even though involvement in this situation can be considered "just", violent actions can be avoided.
ReplyDeleteI think that this does not fit the just war theory. I believe that the biggest criteria of a just war is to wear out all other options. It would be just for the US to create war against Syria. I think if anything we should be finding ways through diplomacy to help out with the government of the Syrian people. Like Luara said, now at this moment it would not be just. I think if times passes and the US and other countries try to aid this problem then it would be just. And like Alex stated, we need to try all other possible foreign policy tools. We have to test all options before creating a war that may have not been nessecary
ReplyDeleteThese massacres fit in a just war theory and is directly related to criteria. It is time for someone to step in take out the government and look past Russia's future debt due to it if it means saving lives. The U.S has every right to go in a protect the citizens as do the UN. The government although controlling the country is not very strong as compared to the rest of the world. The U.S. are very much prepared and could easily be successful in a war over a much less powerful country such as Syria. Although my point earlier is pro war we could easily try to make a more peaceful solution and try to work with the government to stop this. But as if it come to it war would be a threat that the U.S could to do to intimidate.
ReplyDeleteTHIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED. COMMENTS AFTER THIS POINT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR CREDIT.
ReplyDelete