There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States and UN should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has been criticized for its non-intervention policy, especially with the rise in the level of violence and the spread of conflict to other areas of the country, and even to its borders with Turkey and Iraq. It is time for this ‘cease fire’ of intervention to stop. The killings, the bombings and destruction within Syria haven’t stopped and likely won’t unless something is done to force its end. This conflict has gone from an internal struggle into an impending second Cold War of international interests, reasserting the tension between the U.S. and Russia. If this conflict is not brought to a halt, it will bring upon a domino effect of danger and economic problems that reach every corner of the world. It is in the United States’ best interest to increase the military aid to Syrian rebels in order to avoid immense financial implications and the prospect of a growing force of terror that could result without our intervention.Upon reading this statement there is an immediate disapproval from many individuals stating we would be pushing a line between intervention and invasion. So, before supporting this argument, it’s important to note the possible cons to taking a direct militaristic path to Syrian aid.Americahas always been viewed as the global ‘peace-keepers,’ and because of this wehave made many friends and enemies. For the last fifty years, we have jumpedinto conflict after conflict believing that our nation would emerge as thevictors due to prior victories from the Revolutionary War to WWII. To some,this mentality has led to a consistent underestimation of groups like al Qaeda,and the Taliban by politicians and citizens alike here in the United States. Forthis intervention to work, we must take it step-by-step or else we may findourselves in way over our heads just like in Vietnam.Something else that the United States must consider is the duration of this sustained conflict we may enter. Due to the sense of American exceptionalism held in our nation (that we are the greatest and most powerful country in the world), the civilian population may think war will be a quick “in and out” fight: America goes in, kicks ass, people love us, and then we go. In reality, we could be paying for an indirect war that could very well last for another 10 years, and even upon its completion, could cost billions more to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure in Syria.Thatbeing said, isolationism or complacency could prove to be absolutelydetrimental to the United States and the world. Without continued and increasedmilitaristic involvement from the United States, two aspects of United Statesand world affairs will become extremely volatile.Thefirst of these two pieces involves avoiding the breaking-down of internationalwar norms, and deterrence from further violence in the region. The most obvious benefit of ending the Syrian civilwar is the prevention of the escalation of conflict across the Middle East andthe deterrence involvement would create towards the use of chemical weapons.The Obama administration’s “don’t cross this line or else you’re in trouble”tactic did nothing to resolve the conflict and caused many countries, mostimportantly al-Assad’s Syrian regime to question whether we were just all talk.An immediate and unforgiving show of strength, leading to full destruction ofAssad’s armies would immediately deter all other “states with aspirations toregional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S. partners fromtrying to solve security problems on their own in ways that would end upthreatening other states” (Brooks and Wohlforth 2013). While many criticizeU.S. outreach into other countries’ “business,” a lack of involvement in Syriacould lead to a chain reactions of wars within the Middle East that couldcompletely dismantle all resource and trade agreements the U.S. relies on fromthat region.Additionally, the United States has a nationalsecurity interest in ensuring that “when countries break international norms onchemical weapons they are held accountable” (Blanchard and Sharp 2013). Knowingfull well that Syria is using chemical weapons on their citizens and enemiesand doing nothing to stop it, opens up an entirely new chapter in the worldwide‘book of war’. In a recent article published by SOFREP, a news network run bySpecial Ops veterans, the idea of chemical weapon adoption was discussed andthe writer stated that, “There is undoubtedly utility in spanking a dictator ifhe uses chem[ical weapons] against his people. To not do so invites moreof it, or worse, the acceptance of chemical weapons as a weapon of war” (SOFREP2017). If we refuse to use force in showing complete disapproval of chemicalweapon use, every other country that feels any desire to use chemical weaponswill no longer feel any obligation to avoid using them. Leading to warsbecoming even more violent and deadly than they already are. Although the U.S.faces no immediate domestic war, avoidance of keeping this war norm set, couldeventually prove to be a very costly decision should any war erupt in ourfuture.The second most direct reason that it is in U.Sinterest to intervene in Syria, and highest of direct importance involves whatwould be the loss of a huge supplier of foreign oil and a huge blow to the U.S.global economy network resulting from the spread of ISIS control throughout theregion.Although there could already be too much damage todomestic Syria to ever rebuild a fully functioning sovereign state, theavoidance of such an effort would lead, almost certainly, to the following twocatastrophic outcomes. The full collapse of Iraq and Syria and the long-termenshrinement of the Islamic State (Thanassis Boston Globe).Terrorist networks like al-Qaeda and ISIS rely ondiscourse and conflict in unstable regions in order to implant their influenceand control in that region. The ungoverned territory that would result from agovernmental collapse of Syria and Iraq would provide said territory for theseterrorist groups to operate. The collapse of the Syrian state and a severelyweak Iraqi state have recently created the perfect vacuum for terrorists tofill as we saw in the Vice News movie documenting ISIS influence in the region.According to journalist Antoun Issa, “The consequences have been an expandedreach of terrorism that is frequently hitting Europe, and inspiring lone-wolfattacks in the United States” (Issa et al. 2016). In addition to this up-scalingof area from which to operate terrorist activity from, in an ungoverned state,these terrorist groups would have full control over the states’ oil fields andreserves. According to the Financial Times, these groups already have controlover a huge portion of those reserves. “Isis’s main oil producing region is inSyria’s eastern Deir Ezzor province, where production was somewhere between34,000 to 40,000 barrels a day in October” (FinancialTimes 2017). It was reported that ISIS currently makes $1.5m a day off ofoil smuggling alone, with full access to all of these states’ oil fields, ISIScould control an enormous amount of oil that the world depends on and couldcontrol where, when, and to who the oil is sent to.Without a direct intervention from U.S. Militarypower, the United States economy and oil availability would begin to plummetand the future of our nation’s safety would be put wildly at risk.Now that the factor regarding why involvement is necessaryhas been answered, it is necessary to continue deliberation about why and howmilitaristic intervention is the best path to take.Developinga strategy for attack that encompasses main targets and pressure points whileavoiding crossing the line from intervention into invasion by sending a fullarmy is of utmost importance, or else the fabled ‘World War III’ could unravelinto less of a fable. A U.S.-led military campaign would require a selectfew detailed strategic points to build off of. First, the military would need to putcivilian well-being as its highest interest to end the innocent death countwhich is already reaching the hundreds of thousands. In doing so, themilitary would promote a core politicalsystem where all people share and reserve certain rights that must always bekept. Next, weakening the Syriangovernment’s military forces would not only slow the damage being done to stateitself, but would also begin to reintroducenorms of warfare by ‘curbing’ the al-Assad regime that is currently usingchemical weaponry against its citizens. Finally, since completely destroyingthe al-Assad regime is not the goal, forming a balance between the rebels andnewly forming government would be the target of this intervention. This wouldrequire the Syrian state to develop its own new governing body while stillimposing the threat of military strikes or withholding of military aid to anyparty that aspires to outright victory rather than negotiated settlement. Building offthe ideas that would encompass an effective intervention, it is important tonote that many of the “minimalistic” ideas proposed by some critics opposed tofull-scale military aid would have little effect on the stability of theregion. The problem with these proposed minimalistintervention solutions involving the implementation of “no-fly zones” or “nokill” zones is that, in Syrian conditions, according to researcher GarethEvans,  “full-scale warfare would almostcertainly have been required to impose them: the minimum may entail somethinglike the maximum” (Evans 2014). Basically meaning that by enforcing a measureused to prevent a war from breaking out, often ignites that war into fruition.Recently, Trump ordered the firing of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrianregime infrastructure. And although Turkish foreign minister MevlutCavusoglu described this decision to retaliate as welcome, it was still notnearly enough. In an interview with The Washington Post, the primeminister stated, “If this intervention is limited only to an air base, if itdoes not continue and if we don’t remove the regime from heading Syria,then this would remain a cosmetic intervention” (Loveluck and Zakaria 2017).Slight and sporadic military strikes would be the same as doing absolutelynothing and would have no true effect on the outcome of the conflict. For the U.S. to have an effective militaristicintervention that meets all the goals listed above, without it turning into aninvasion in the eyes of the world, three strategies need to be continued andamplified.First, the U.S. needs to continue its deployment ofmobile bases of operation, in this instance, Navy fleets that can be stationedthroughout the Persian Gulf (Lostumbo et al. 2013), allow for flexibility torespond rapidly to any situation at any time across a broad range ofunpredictable events. So, if at any point additional ground troops or artilleryassistance is needed, the aid is available quickly and efficiently.  Currently in Syria and Iraq, there a few smallSpecial Operations Forces teams deployed (Navy SEAL teams and Delta Forceoperators) to do small time raids against ISIS troops threatening neutralcivilian populations and aid in the training of local troops. Recently,the U.S. military has drawn up early plansthat would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into Syria in thecoming weeks. Under this plan, “the added American forces would act primarilyas advisers, offering expertise on bomb disposal and coordinating air supportfor the coalition of Kurds and Arabs” (Gibbons-Neff 2017). In February 2014,Director of National Intelligence James Clapper estimated the strength of theinsurgency in Syria at “somewhere between 75,000 or 80,000 or up to 110,000 to115,000” (Blanchard et al. 2014). With our military training being taught tothis enormous force by a continually growing U.S. special forces presence beingsent in to Syria, the rebellion will gain a HUGE (*said in exaggerated Trumpvoice*) advantage over the existing regime and terrorist fighting units. Thismaking the war fought by Syrian rebels and aided by us rather than the otherway around, saving both U.S. lives and money.The final piece of military presence that wouldensure continued cooperation and success is that of tactical air assaultsagainst regime ground forces via drones and launches from the nearby mobilefleets. Such an operation would heavily shift the advantage in the rebellion’sdirection in multiple ways. First, these precise and powerful air assaults runby U.S. forces would quickly eradicate any regime forces that posed any sort ofthreat to civilian or rebellion populations. And second, knowing that theycould be targeted anywhere, anytime, regime soldiers’ morale would rapidly dropcausing many to flee from the conflict altogether (Pollack 2013).Knowing that involvement in this conflict will savecountless lives and protect the future of our country, and having the plan ofaction to effectively carry out this intervention, it is absolutely in the bestinterest of the United States government to launch this calculated militaryplan into action. Successful U.S. intervention would represent auseful reassertion of American power and reinforce the notion that the breakingof international law will never go smoothly for any sovereign state ororganization. “At worst, the Syrian crisis would be as problematic as it istoday, but there would be fewer civilian casualties, and the United Stateswould gain leverage with its allies on other matters because of its beefed-upengagement in Syria. At best, a more aggressive U.S. effort in Syria wouldlimit Russian overreach, increase the likelihood of a political solution, androll back some of the destabilizing regional consequences of the Syrianimplosion” (Thanassis Century Foundation).The U.S. has so much to lose by playing the isolationist role, and so much togain by directly aiding the Syrian resistance. Said best by John F. Kennedy,“There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long rangerisks of comfortable inaction.”ReferencesBlanchard, Christopher M., Carla E. Humud, and Mary Beth D. Nikitin. 2014. “Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and US Response.” Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service.Blanchard, Christopher M., and Jeremy M. Sharp. 2013. “Possible US Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress.” Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service. Brooks, Stephen, and William Wohlforth. 2013. “Lean Forward: In Defense of American Engagement.” Foreign Affairs 92: 130.Cambanis, Thanassis. 2016. “The Case for a More Robust U.S. Intervention in Syria.” The Century Foundation, October 5.https://tcf.org/content/report/the-case-for-a-more-robust-intervention-in-syria/ (April 20, 2017).Cambanis, Thanassis. 2016. “Time for US to act in Syria – The Boston Globe.” Boston Globe, June 30. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/06/29/time-for-act-syria/Fq0zwuxJUfLFDC7lDqWDIL/story.html (May 1, 2017).Evans, Gareth. 2014. “The Consequences of Non-Intervention in Syria: Does the Responsibility to Protect Have a Future?.” Into the Eleventh Hour 19.Gibbons-Neff, Thomas. 2017. “U.S. military likely to send as many as 1,000 more ground troops into Syria ahead of Raqqa offensive, officials say.” The Washington Post, March 15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/03/15/u-s-military-probably-sending-as-many-as-1000-more-ground-troops-into-syria-ahead-of-raqqa-offensive-officials-say/?utm_term=.c1e36ff79e90 (May 1, 2017).Issa, Antoun et al. 2016. “Is War in Syria in America’s Interest?” The National Interest, October 13. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/war-syria-americas-interest-18037 (April 22, 2017).Lostumbo, Michael J. et al. 2013. Overseas Basing of U.S. Military Forces: An Assessment of Relative Costs and Strategic Benefits. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Loveluck, Louisa, and Zakaria Zakaria. 2017. “Despite U.S. missile barrage, Syria continues airstrikes against rebels.” The Washington Post, April 8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/warplanes-return-to-syrian-town-devastated-by-chemical-attack/2017/04/08/38a5d8cc-1bdc-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html?utm_term=.0382582d5356 (April 27, 2017).Pollack, Kenneth M. 2013. “Breaking the Stalemate: The Military Dynamics of the Syrian Civil War and Options for Limited US Intervention.” Middle East Memo 30: 2013.Sofrep. 2017. “A case for intervention in Syria: Three reasons why we should intervene.” SOFREP News, April 11. https://sofrep.com/79041/case-intervention-syria-three-reasons-intervene-2/ (May 2, 2017).“Syria Oil Map: The Journey of a Barrel of Isis Oil.” 2016. Financial Times, February 29. http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/ (May 1, 2017).Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more