With peer reviewed works cited.

Post 1 response:

The articles I am able to say that I concur with are very direct in their approach. They hold many truths, from my point of view, but in reality it seems to be a lot more disinformation nowadays and it seems more and more people are fact checking on Google which is great but it is one part of the inhuman nature of it. Human experience and sources are also crucial to be aware of and also obtain direct sources even though there are possibilities of inaccuracies. Some things that Jose Mujica said of some sort in one of his interviews, now these are not direct quotes just trying to remember his words, “People learn from their past instead of learning from the individual next to them”. He further was making an analogy of that phrase by saying “Animals learn from what occurs around them but a person is the type that hits his toe in specific area and instead of learning from it the next person hits his toe in the same area.” It was something of that sort.

Firstly I would like to state that there were multiple conflicts that escalated the situation that it has occurred. There are multiple hypothesis and theories that may be used in the interpretation and facts of this particular case.

My first hypothesis is highly agreeable to the article from the New York Times. It does seem that there are always hidden agendas and motives and external influences that are always taking place for politic and national power or dominance or personal gain. The United States aided the rebel fights with a multitude of supplies and with the U.S. Citizens Credit Card. In the efforts to “dethrone” President al-Assad for his crimes for he was trying to stop the civil conflict with force most likely to take control before it escalated further. During that time there was a weakening in the state and 2 factions formed then later broke down into more individual militias with foreign backers. The main separation was that one was on the Presidents side and the others were the rebel groups that opposed Assad. Before you know it civil war and destabilization began. At one point the Russians swept in and conducted a large number airstrikes directly to ISIS and other opposing groups which caused political conflict with the U.S. The two powerhouses have opposing views towards the future of Syria, Russia was wanting to keep al-Assad in power because he was a seen as good leader and did his best with what he had even though the nation was spiraling down in many ways. The U.S. however opposed the idea and wanted Assad out and wanted the U.S. military being the dominant one and further claimed of using chemical weapons on his own people. To this day I keep hearing from outside direct sources that it never occurred otherwise there would be a larger crowd to remove him from power. The main objective for the U.S. became to “take out evil Assad and “take out ISIS” as a secondary measure to win public hearts for support, but the enemy just kept replenishing. There were many attacks from both nations and many other small nations were against the terrorist groups throughout the years as the state weakened more because of ISIL and other terrorist group presence. None of the offensive attacks truly brought good results.

The matter is that the U.S. did not want to intervene due to personal agenda and gain in that geographic location. The main objective was to remove the President and maybe put in a puppet in the seat, or just to keep the war machine turning. I do not completely know. I am not in connection with anyone that has direct answers. My gut instincts tell me that there was no real or true fierce attack was conducted in Syria lead by the U.S. because there was an alternative to their strategy in achieving their goals, by simply training and supplying the rebels or Kurds or anyone sided with the U.S. to do the job for them. It’s easier for everyone.

Another hypothesis is that no one would think to theorize this. It is that the conflicts that occurred that are significant where millions of refuges that had to move to other nations and negative outcome from many aspects came along it. Nations are crippling and becoming slowly destabilized by the influx of people, especially very modern nations. Now there is no backing for this thought however, if many nations are weakened and vulnerable then there is opportunity there for taking advantage of the situation as one sees fit. No matter whom it may affect which may include allies or vassals. It is just my strategy and tactics at play.

The main thought is at the unit-level analysis is that there were no proper civil approaches to resolve any issues that may have bothered any person in the nation. Sometimes help is not available due to the lack of resources. Civil wars occur and may occur from very small things and all the way up to large one.

{One great thing an older friend once me told was that there is a large population Christians in Syria and if Assad had been removed and without the aid of Russia, many Christians would have been slaughtered like animals due to religious views.}

Post 2 response:

At the systemic level of analysis, the neoliberalism theory provides a basis for the hypothesis that the United States’ involvement in the Syrian Civil War is minimal, particularly under President Obama’s policies. Neoliberalism places importance upon the smaller interacting members, in this case Assad’s military and the rebel groups. As the relationship between these two actors is the driving point of conflict, it is the relationships on those individual levels that must be addressed and improved. Rather than emphasizing the power dynamics as the realists do, the neoliberalism model examines and acknowledges the institutions of the government that affect those relationships. President Obama maintained a hands-off approach especially during his administration, and while he and President Trump both ordered airstrikes on Syria, the two differed. President Trump’s airstrike was in response to the use of chemical attacks, something that President Obama considered his “red line (CNN, 2017).” President Trump has also encouraged cooperation with Russia, despite concerns that it may fuel a proxy war between the United States and Russia as a result (2017). It is for this reason that President Obama’s response used a neoliberalist method, depending on the relationships of the smaller actors rather than involving other countries and implicating the United States further.

Using the liberalism theory, I hypothesize that the United States is refraining from intervention in Syria so that actions taken by the Syrian government and the rebels will be more predictable, particularly concerning the use of chemical weapons. In liberalist theory, it is argued that the citizens play a significant role in international relations, contrary to the realist theory. In Michael W. Doyle’s article “Liberalism and World Politics,” he notes “When the citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible.”, and this is a potential reason that the United States has let the Rebel groups begin to take control (Doyle, 1986: 1151). The use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government gives the United States pause, which could show the effects of the liberalist theory so that the United States would either punish Assad for the use of weapons, or become more involved.

Post 3 question response:

You wrote: “The minorities such as the Alawi community are now left unprotected and prone to elimination by the regime.” Bashar-al-Asad himself belongs to the Alawite community. So, why would he eliminate his own community or the core support base?