American troops are currently stationed in Syria and reportedly taking oil from the country. There is a lot of debate amongst Americans on this matter, which is very heated. One side argues that America must help the Syrian rebels fight against what they believe to be a tyrannical government. The other side believes that America is not supposed to be occupying Syria as they claim that America is committing war crimes. This debate is a moral battle, fighting on whether or not it's morally wrong or right for the United States to be inside Syria.
Remember that this is a tricky debate; there are many arguments that one would hear from different people. Therefore, the two sides I am providing are not the only arguments. I am only providing common arguments you might hear from people.
Some people believe that the U.S. should help the rebels fight because of humanitarian reasons. In the early 2010s, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces violently interrupted peaceful protests. The protests started during the 2010 Arab Spring because the people were upset with the Syrian government abusing its power to suppress the people throughout the nation. Many reports claim that government forces fired upon the peaceful protestors and killed many individuals throughout the protests. The deaths of peaceful protestors give reason to think that the right thing to do is to let United States troops occupy the rebel-controlled land. Thus, one could argue that Americans are fighting for human rights in Syria.
The family's tyranny was why people decided to fight back against the government and why the Syrian Kurds in the northeast of Syria believed they should have their own country. This very reason is why the United States officially claims to be their primary objective in Syria.
Syria has a history of Assad using his power for what people deem tyrannical and dictatorial. His tyranny was why people decided to fight back against the government and why the Syrian Kurds in the northeast of Syria believed they should have their own country. This very reason is why the United States officially claims to be their primary objective in Syria: to help those who wish to be free from what they protest to be a tyrannical government. During Obama's presidency, he ordered the CIA to arm and train the Syrian militia fighting against the Syrian government. The training would allow the Syrian rebels to fight for themselves and win victories. Based on the maps we can see today, that training worked out for the Kurdish forces.
On the other hand, others may argue that the U.S. is wrong because they are stealing oil directly from northeastern Syrian land, which they claim to be illegal. Counter arguments are that American oil companies have permission from the Kurdish officials who control that land area to take oil from that area; therefore, it is not stealing. Why is it illegal if they have permission to take oil from the Kurdish officials who control that land? How can something be illegal if they have permission from those claiming the land?
There are at least three core reasons why the U.S. is wrong. Those core reasons are: the U.S. trained Al-Qaeda; America is breaking international law by taking oil from Syria; America is smuggling resources into Iraq. We will break down each reason and turn them into understandable arguments.
When the CIA trained the Syrian militia, they trained Islamist extremists who eventually formed al-Qaeda in Syria, who formed the Islamic State (IS). The CIA even gave them weapons they used against the Kurdish forces we were supposed to be helping. Because of this reason, some argue that America was only doing wrong for its actions in Syria. It failed to assist its allies, only leading to creating more enemies. Many found this troubling, and it was even classified until it was made public.
Many reports claimed that America was stealing resources, like wheat and the previously mentioned oil, smuggling them into Iraq. Many might argue that there is no justifiable reason that the United States should be stealing fuel and food from Syria.
Many argue that America has been breaking international law by taking oil from Syria and smuggling it into Iraq. Their reasoning often goes like this: the oil is still in Syrian administrative land; therefore, the United States is stealing resources from Syria, making it illegal under the Geneva Convention. So why should America continue committing internationally illegal actions? They have no right to illegally take the oil, especially if it isn't theirs. It's a war crime. Therefore, the United States cannot be justified in stealing resources from the Syrian administrative territory. Considering the number of reports on the United States stealing oil, those who argue for this side believe that we should reconsider how justified the U.S. is regarding its presence in Syria.
Many reports claimed that America was stealing resources, like wheat and the previously mentioned oil, smuggling them into Iraq. Many might argue that there is no justifiable reason that the U.S. should be stealing fuel and food from Syria. The U.S. was stealing food from a nation already under a food shortage because of the Ukraine war. A recent drought in Syria made them dependent on wheat from Russia, which has been sanctioned. These actions only make the U.S. more in the wrong because it’s stealing food from a nation that can barely feed itself.
R - America is right
W - America is wrong
W - America should not be inside Syria right now. We've already caused enough problems as is.
R - What do you mean? We have to fight for human rights that are being violated right now in Syria.
W - But all we're doing right now is stealing oil and wheat from Syria and taking it to Iraq. That's a war crime.
R - We have permission to take oil from Syria from the Kurdish officials who control the oil fields. Why should we get permission from a government that doesn't even control the land?
W - It's still under the administration of the Syrian government. You still need permission from them.
R - Okay, but we should still be helping them in any way we can, like continuing to give them weapons and training. We stopped doing that because Trump canceled that program.
W - That would be nice if it weren't for the fact that by doing that, we created a well-trained and supplied al-Qaeda.
And the debate goes on. Note that this is only one possibility of how a debate may go out of many other ways this conversation could have gone.
Comments