Read the following article that discusses the escalating conflict in Syria:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/world/europe/us-to-begin-military-talks-with-russia-on-syria.html?src=recg&_r=0
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. How long as Syria been embroiled in a civil war?
2. What has been America's official stance on Russian action in Syria?
3. In what three ways can the Russian-military buildup in Syria serve the interests of Russia's government?
4. How do American concerns about ISIL and ISIS play into the situation in Syria?
5. Why does the article claim that "the whole region is watching this" (the actions taken by the US and Russia)?
6. What is John Kerry's goal when it comes to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad?
7. In this familiar situation (think back to last year's Russian advances in Ukraine), the White House's actions seem bent on trying to settle this present situation diplomatically. In your opinion, how effective is this strategy? At what point, if any, should the US resort to military force to achieve its aims in the region?
BRIAN PHAM
ReplyDelete1. Syria has been in an increasingly devastating four years civil war.
2. America's official stance on the Russian buildup is to be more diplomatic and try to get the Russian's to deter from causing a possible global conflict.
3. The three ways that the military buildup could serve Russia's interests are as follows, it could strengthen Mr. Assad (head of the current Syrian government), it can place Moscow in a stronger position to negotiate the formation of a new Syrian government, or it can help to strengthen all of Russia's future strategic interests
4. The American concerns with ISIS/ISIL play into the situation in Syria due to the fact that the Pentagon has failed to train rebels who would fight the organization and are instead, wanting to fight against Assad himself.
5. The article claims that "the whole region is watching this" because of the Syrians are in the midst of it all. With Russians trying to undercut American influence or trying to introduce a new security change in the Middle East (it could probably be subjective) and the U.S. flying in hundreds of aircraft to combat ISIS/ISIL forces or worrying about not conflicting with the Russians.
6. John Kerry's goal on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is to know just what is so important about Assad and what role he plays in all of the Russian military buildup in Syria when it comes to future changes.
7. The White House's diplomatic approach to the Russian military buildup in Syria is effective because it allows for the belligerent to settle down and think about his or her actions and can change the minds of people very well, depending on the negotiator's ability, of course. However, up to a certain point where negotiation is futile, military force should be imposed to allow people to get the "bigger picture" of what is going on and to prevent any further "mistakes" that could possibly happen (and possibly destroy our future).
Dylan hydrick
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2.their strategy in helping to end the civil war in Syria is doomed to failure .
3. help strengthen Mr. Assad, could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government if Mr. Assad is pushed out of power, helps Russia cement its strategic interests in what experts say is its most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4.Administration officials have long argued that Mr. Assad’s brutal and often indiscriminate crackdown against its foes has encouraged support for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
5. US is now caught in the middle of Russia trying to forcefully end the civil war and both Russia and Syria are keeping an eye on the US for whatever move the US makes.
6.they have to remove him to be able to reach their goal of ending isis.
7. the strategy that the US has taken lately in its foreign affairs has been anything but effective. there is no question that the US has always been considered the "top dawg" when it comes to technology , military , and political powers (don't forget sports #merica) . but with the moves we have been making with other countries is degrading our view for other countries in the world. if some thing is wrong or we feel is hurting the civilization of any allies or it be our allies are doing things that aren't right or wrong we need to implement military actions to put those countries in their place and remind them that were all on this world together not separate.
April McCool
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. to draw the Russians into a political process that would ultimately replace Syria’s government of President Bashar al-Assad
3. strengthen Mr. Assad, could put Moscow in a stronger position, also help Russia cement its strategic interests
4. They view it as an effort to undercut American influence in the region
5. Russia is trying to change security dynamics while the White House is worrying about Dee-conflicting airplanes
6. Politically settlement could not be achieved with al-Assad's presence
7. Not quite, and the United States should not resort to military forces unless it was the absolute last solution. If they do with it not being major, it could cause for trouble and resolutions
Mayson McGee:
ReplyDelete1) Syria had been in a civil war for about 4 years now.
2) Coordinate actions in the war zones to avoid accidental escalation of conflict.
3) A) Help strengthens Mr. Assad, who Russia has backed and who has suffered many military reversals in the past months.
B) It could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape a new Syrian government, if Mr. Assad is pushed out of power.
C) Helps Russia cement its strategic interests
4) It plays into the situation because America has dropped hundreds of bombs in Syria striking the ISIS.
5) It is saying this because everybody is waiting to see what actions are going to be done by the United States and Russia.
6) His goal is to get political transition that leads to a stable, united, and secular Syria.
7) I believe our strategy should be fine if everything works out according to plan. The only time that the US should take any action is if we are attacked.
Emily Free
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. President Obama said that their action was “strategy that’s doomed to failure.”
3. It could help strengthen Mr. Assad, put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government, and help Russia cement its strategic interests.
4. Our main focus is to destroy ISIL and to gain a political settlement with respect for Syria, but it is believed that it cannot be achieved with the presence of Assad.
5. Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the Middle East, and the White House is concerned with de-conflicting airplanes instead of focusing on the efforts against Assad.
6. He believes that it is not possible to destroy ISIL with the long-term presence of Assad.
7. So far, it doesn't seem very effective. "With respect to getting the Russians to be a useful partner in a political settlement, we’ve tried that twice under better circumstances and failed,” said Michael A. McFaul. I think that the US should continue to try and settle the situation diplomatically, but if there continues to be limited progress, then we should resort to military force.
1. Syria has been in the midst of a civil way for four years now.
ReplyDelete2. The United States did not want Russia to be involved in the war, but now the U.S. military has began to talk to the Russian military about intervening in Syria.
3. It could help strengthen Mr. Assad, who suffered several military reversals in the past months, and who Russia has backed. It could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the new Syrian Government if Mr. Assad falls from power. It could also help cement Russia's in new Middle Eastern military outposts.
4. American officials are concerned that Assad and his methods have rallied support for the Islamic State. Assad must be taken out of power completely for there to be peace in Syria. Not necessarily will Assad have to be removed immediately, but in the long run he has to go.
5. The United States is known for not agreeing with and negotiating with the Russian government. Now that the U.S. is opening up to negotiating with the Russians to help solve the situation in Syria, the entire world has an eye on both countries and how what we negotiate helps Syria make it through this crisis.
6. Kerry says that the presidents plans that a complete conversation is an important next step will help the United States define some of the different options that are available to them.
7. This strategy is very effective if both sides comply to what they have agreed on. The United states would only need to resort to military force if Russia were to compromise a situation or end up hurting rather than helping. The civil war in Syria is one of the most devastating and brutal wars in recent history, and it needs to be ended quickly one way or another. It would be preferable to not send U.S. soldiers unless it was completely necessary.
Matthew sloan-
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. They do not agree with it and believe it to be an ineffective strategy.
3. it could strengthen mr.assad. It will strengthen Moscow. It will strengthen russia's strategic interests.
4. the main common goal is to destroy isis.
5. to determine which moves should be made next.
6. To find common grounds.
7. Attempting to come to compromises with stubborn or people of different intentions will not always work. This has proven to be an ineffective way of handling things because the U.S has not gotten what it wants in the past. Military action is effective and would be in this situation. Of course military action is not always the answer but in cases that involve the safety of peoples lives or the security of this world, it is.
Lauren Beatty
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. America wants to work together with Russia to avoid conflict and push Assad out of presidency.
3. It can help strengthen Mr. Assad, put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government, and help Russia cement its strategic interests in their new Middle East military outpost.
4. America needs Mr. Assad to be put out of power, in order to take down ISIS and ISIL, in order to have a durable solution to the Syria crisis.
5. Because it affects the entire region
6. To either put him out of office or to slowly decrease his power. Overall, he wants to transition Assad out of office, quickly or slowly.
7. Obviously settling this situation diplomatically is going to take a lot of time and convincing. It can be done. However, if Assad is resistant or unwilling to negotiate then military force should be used, if it will benefit America as a whole.
Drew Gardino
ReplyDelete-Four years
-President Obama said it is a "Strategy doomed to fail"
-1.Help strengthen Mr. Assad
2.Put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the new Syrian government
3.Help Russia cement its strategic interests
-It has encouraged support for the Islamic State
-Because Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the Middle East
-To stabilize Syria and end the civil war
-I think that the strategy the US is taking is very effective. It will keep the US from getting into a fight with Syria and it will possibly help Syria's political problem.
Christina Cabanero
ReplyDelete1) Syria has been embroiled in a civil war for four years now.
2) America is concerned about losing their influence over the Middle East and wishes to prevent any further action taken by Russia in Syria.
3) The buildup of the Russian military in Syria could strengthen President Assad, put Moscow in a stronger position to shape formation of a new Syrian government if President Assad is kicked out of power, and it aids Russia in creating solid strategic interests in one of the new most important outposts in the Middle East.
4) America's main focus is still destroying ISIL with a proper political arrangement with Syria, but the recent activity with Russia will change the outcome if Russia remains in Syria for a long period of time, backing and allowing President Assad to remain in control of Syria.
5) The article claims that "the whole region is watching this" because having Russian influence over American in Syria would change all aspects of the Syrian civil war, with many different possible outcomes.
6) John Kerry's goal is to get Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of government or at least to find a common ground.
7) I think that this strategy of settling the problem diplomatically could be effective if done correctly. The US military should refrain from using force to achieve its aims for the region until another country makes an attack on the US military stationed in Syria. Or if the United States is informed of information that could cause the downfall of Syria and massive problems that would have bad effects globally, that cannot be prevented any other way than force.
Casey Coggins
ReplyDelete1. Syria has been in a civil war for four years.
2. America’s stance on the war in Syria is that Russia should not get involved.
3. The Russian military buildup in Syria will help the Russian government by strengthening the Syrian President Mr. Assad, who is supported by Russia, putting Moscow in a better position to form a new Syrian government without Assad, and helping Russia get into what is said to be the most important new military outpost in the Middle East.
4. Americans are concerned about ISIS/ISIL in the Syria situation, because Assad is said to have encouraged support for ISIS/ISIL, while America is trying to destroy ISIS/ISIL and correct political matters.
5. The article claims that the “whole region is watching this”, because it is almost a fight between Russia and America; Russia wants to help its allies while America wants to crush ISIS.
6. John Kerry’s goal with the Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad is that Assad will no longer be in power in Syria for much longer.
7. I believe that it is always better to settle a situation in a logical and diplomatic way. Not only will it prevent the spending of lots of money on the military but it will also save time and the lives of many soldiers and civilians. Settling things in this matter also puts the country in a calm and professional light. I do not think the U.S. should use any military force unless it is absolutely needed for the wellbeing of America. Military force should only be used when the other country involved absolutely refuses to settle things in a calm and diplomatic way and if there is a direct threat to America.
1. Four years.
ReplyDelete2. Obama has recently condemned Russia's moves as a "strategy doomed to failure" and the Obama administration delivered a stern warning to the Kremlin two weeks ago that military buildup in Syria risked an escalation of the civil war there or even an inadvertent confrontation with the United States. But the White House has also acknowledged how the Kremlin effectively changed the calculus in Syria in a way that would not be soon reversed despite vigorous American objections
3. It could help strengthen Mr. Assad, put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government if Mr. Assad is pushed out of power, and help Russia cement its strategic interests in what experts say is its most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4. American's have have sent multiple air mission strikes on the Islamic State. They are focused on destroying ISIL, but want to have a political settlement with Assad.
5. Because it claims many people are focused on what to do in Syria right now and not everyone is on the same page.
6. To turn convergence on tactical military issue into a collective and viable political strategy to stabilize Syria and end the war.
7. I am not a pro-war type of person. I think if done correctly, the U.S. could successfully attempt to settle this situation diplomatically, but it's unsure of how Syria would react. It does not only depend on how the U.S. does this but also how Syria reacts. Of course resorting to military force is always an option, I think it should be closer to the bottom of our list of options than the top.
Kailee Post
Gabby Traywick
ReplyDeleteSyria has been in a civil war for four years. America's stance on Russian action is Syria that they would like to join in military action but Russia will not. The Russian military buildup could strengthen Mr. Assad, make Moscow stronger, and help Russia implement it's strategic interests. Americans fears with ISIL and ISIS causes America to bomb Syria. It i said that "the whole region is watching this" to see how Russia is planning attacks and how the United States should counteract. John Kerry's goal is to reach a political settlement and destroy ISIL. This strategy appears to not be very effective because when the United States tried to join with Russia on it's action they would not. At the point where ISIL endangers many American lives and the political settlement causes problems is when the US could resort to military force to achieve it's aims in Syria.
Brandon Appling
ReplyDelete1.4 years
2.They just don't want American and Russian forces to accidently clash and are against ISIS.
3.Syria's government is led by an ally of Russia. It could allow Russia to be able to put a new leader in if their ally loses his power. It could allow Russia to hold some of the most important military outposts in the middle east.
4.ISIS or ISIL is also a part of the civil war.
5.Because the war will sway in favor of the Syrian government if the Russians grow strong in the area.
6.He realizes we cannot just poof al-Assad out of power.
7.The US should continue to try and settle this problem diplomatically, the US sticks its military's nose in places it doesn't belong too often, and usually the conflict ends with losses and the wasting of tax payer's money.
Abby Ingle
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. our government disagrees with the actions Russia has taken in Syria.
3. It could strengthen Assad, put the Russian capitol in a better position of power, and help Russia cement strategic interests in the area.
4. ISIS and ISIL are both based in Syria.
5.The U.S. and Russia are both large, powerful countries and each one has a different stance on this issue, so the other countries in that area are watching to see who "wins" or gets their way.
6. his goal is to put him out of power so the war will end and Syria can become a stable country
7. I personally believe that the United States should stay out of this conflict unless directly threated by the countries involved. However, if our government must be involved, then diplomacy won't be very effective. The U.S. should use military action as a last resort, but only under extreme circumstances.
Nate Sanford
ReplyDelete1) Four years
2) Russia's military build up in Syria may lead to a confrontation with the U.S. according to the Obama Administration. President Obama said that Russia's move is doomed to failure.
3) One way is it could strengthen Mr. Assad. It could also put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government if Assad were to be pushed out of power. It could also help Russia settle its strategic interest.
4) Kerry says that the U.S. focus is to destroy ISIS. If we destroy ISIS, then Syria will no longer be under the control of ISIS.
5) Because Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the Middle East, and it shows that it supports its allies. The White House is attempting to solve the problem with airplanes when the problem lies within Assad.
6) He believes that ISIS can not be destroyed and a political settlement in respect to Syria can not be achieved with the long term presence of Assad.
7) That strategy is not effective and is stupid. We should have already destroyed ISIS, so the time to do it is now, since we have not already done so.
Taryn Dockery
ReplyDeleteSyria has been in a civil war for four years. Obama says that this is “doomed to fail.”
Three ways that the Russian military buildup could benefit Russia are that this could strengthen Assad, Moscow would be able to create a new Syrian government, and it is a strategic outpost in the Middle East for Russia. Americans want ISIS and ISIL destroyed, and so does Assad, so destroying ISIS and ISIL is viewed by many as a first priority.
The whole region is watching this to see which influence, American or Russian, will come out on top. Kerry’s goal is to slowly transition Assad out of power. Settling this diplomatically seems great in theory, but it may not work as well as planned. However, military actions should not be taken in Syria because it would only serve to worsen the already violent situation there, which would ultimately end in more deaths for Russia, Syria, and America.
Dillon Baker
ReplyDelete1. Four years
2. It has been condemning it.
3. It can provide them an important military base, it could strengthen the leader Assad who Russia is allies with, and if Assad is put out of power it will give Russia the opportunity to shape the new government.
4. They want to eradicate the insurgents which means Assad must be put out of power first
5. Because this is something that will shape the middle east for years to come because it will dictate who is the military presence in the middle east.
6. He wants him out of power because he feels that the situation cannot be resolved with him in power
7.I believe it is very ineffective. We cannot just sit back and watch this unfold or take a position that does not give us much say. If we want to continue our fight against the Islamic State we need to bolster up and take a handle on the situation before Russia achieves what they want. I feel like the only way to resolve this situation is to take command, restructure the government, make an agreement, and get soldiers on the ground and make a presence.
1. Syria has been in a civil war for four years.
ReplyDelete2. The stance has been one of opposition. The U.S. has been wary of the Russian build-up.
3. It gives them a strong base in the Middle East, they will gain stronger support from their allies, and allow them to influence events in Syria.
4. They are concerned that the current leader of Syria is allowing ISIS and ISIL to run rampant without any consequences.
5. Worse case scenario, Russia and America find themselves at war.
6. Kerry's goal is too have al-Assad removed from power in the long term.
7.The White House's efforts have seemed irrelevant and ineffective in trying to reach a diplomatic solution. If the Russians continue to advance force needs to be at the very least shown, if not used to stop them.
ReplyDelete1.4 years
2. to try to avoid escalating actions of violent conflicts
3. it could strengthen Mr. Assad, it could put Moscow in a stronger position, it could also help Russia cement its strategic interests
4. ISIL needs to be destroyed with respect to Syria
5. Because Russia is trying to start conflicts and we’re not doing doing anything to stop them.
6. “a political transition that leads to whole, stable and secular Syria”
7. The U.S. should resort to military use only when Syria threatens or uses military use also.
Ashlyn Grantham
ReplyDelete1. for over 4 years
2. The Americans have flown hundreds of aircraft weapons to Syria to destroy the Islamic state.
3. It could strengthen Mr. Assad, the president of Syria. It could give strength to Moscow and aid in the formation of creating a new Syrian government, and could help Russia's strategic interests since it is such a great military outpost.
4. America is scared of deconstructing planes, meaning hijacking planes in terrorist attacks. They want to get rid of ISIS and the leader of Russia.
5. Russia is trying to get rid of American influence and strengthen the leader of Syria, while America is trying to overthrow Mr. Assad and help the nation.
6. His main focus is to obliterate the Islamic state, which cannot be done while Assad is still leader.
7. Military force is needed when the lives of citizens are endangered. If terrorism lives in a country, military action should be held. Although you might hurt people, these dangerous terrorists will hurt innocent civilians if something isn't done. It is the military's job to protect its country, and allowing dangerous criminals to live can be detrimental to society.
Alyssa Gore
ReplyDelete1.They have been in a war for four years.
2.They disapprove of their actions in Syria.
3.Moscow could have stronger power,help Russia hold strategic interest,help strengthen Mr.Assad.
4.That is where they are located.
5.They are two major military powers that have completely different opinions.
6.John Kerry wants him removed from power.
7.It's not effective and at any point they should not use military force because it would just make things worse and the war would continue.
Ben O-
ReplyDelete1.Four years
2.The Kremlin had effectively changed the calculus in Syria
3.It can help strengthen Mr. Assad, it could put Russia in a stronger position to shape formation of a new Syrian government, it also helps Russian cement its strategic interests as the most important military outposts.
4.They are afraid that the ISIS terrorist group may use this civil war as a diversion and coming to swoop in and controlling more than they should or what America thinks they should control
5.The whole region is watching this because they know that two of the most powerful countries are trying to control something and they want to know which is stronger and which is more reliable
6.His goal is for him to only be in charge for a short term.
7.I believe that the strategy was extremely non-effective because Russia was not going to stop their advances toward Ukraine unless military force was used. I believe that as soon as Crimea was taken, the American government should have used all the force they could muster to show that Russia has no right to push around other countries like that. Also, we needed to show that America was the stronger country, after all, we did have the Cold War and we won. Are we weakened now so much that we can show no military force? This is absolutely crazy! We should have demolished their advances as soon as we heard about it.
1.Four years
ReplyDelete2.The Kremlin had effectively changed the calculus in Syria
3.It can help strengthen Mr. Assad, it could put Russia in a stronger position to shape formation of a new Syrian government, it also helps Russian cement its strategic interests as the most important military outposts.
4.They are afraid that the ISIS terrorist group may use this civil war as a diversion and coming to swoop in and controlling more than they should or what America thinks they should control
5.The whole region is watching this because they know that two of the most powerful countries are trying to control something and they want to know which is stronger and which is more reliable
6.His goal is for him to only be in charge for a short term.
7.I believe that the strategy was extremely non-effective because Russia was not going to stop their advances toward Ukraine unless military force was used. I believe that as soon as Crimea was taken, the American government should have used all the force they could muster to show that Russia has no right to push around other countries like that. Also, we needed to show that America was the stronger country, after all, we did have the Cold War and we won. Are we weakened now so much that we can show no military force? This is absolutely crazy! We should have demolished their advances as soon as we heard about it.
Cole Frederick
ReplyDelete1. Four years
2. Didn't want them to intervene but wants to make sure that American and Russian forces avoid running into each other by mistake.
3. It could help strengthen Mr. Assad, it could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government, and it also helps Russia cement its strategic interests in what experts say is its most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4. Administration officials have long argued that Mr. Assad’s brutal and often indiscriminate crackdown against its foes has encouraged support for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. And they seem intent on exploring the closed-door comments by Russian diplomats that they are not wedded to the Syrian leader.
5. Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the Middle East and demonstrating that it supports its allies to the hilt. The White House is sitting there and worrying about de-conflicting airplanes when we should be upping our efforts against Assad.
6. The focus remains on destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with respect to Syria, which we believe cannot be achieved with the long-term presence of Assad, but we’re looking for ways in which to try to find a common ground.
7. I think it might not be too effective in terms of the end result for Syria, but it is effective for the U.S. The U.S. does not need to get involved with Russia or it could turn ugly. That is why we also should never result to military action in this case, for it could result in another World War breaking out.
Jane Frances Armour
ReplyDeleteSyria has been embroiled in a civil war for four years. America's official stance on Russia's action in Syria is that their strategy is going to fail and to make sure Russian troops and American troops do not cross paths. The Russian-military buildup in Syria serve the interests of Russia's government because firstly it strengthens their ally, Mr. Assad, and his army. It secondly gives the Russian government a stronger hold on the formation of the government if Mr. Assad is removed from presidency. Then thirdly it helps their strategy because they have new military outposts. American concerns about ISIL and ISIS play into the situation in Syria because Russia is indifferent to them and with the failing government they are getting more support. The article claims that "the whole region is watching this" because they are seeing how far Russia will go and try to change things and if America will take action against Assad. Kerry's goal for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is to get rid of his presence and remove him from presidency. The strategy is effective because it gives an opportunity to resolve the problem without risking military lives. The U.S. should only use the military if Russia starts supporting ISIS or if ISIS tries to take over the government or they start acting on threats to the U.S.
Julie Morrison
ReplyDelete1. They've been in war for about 4 years.
2. At first Obama thought it would be a failure, but after looking at it more he decided that it could end the war.
3. It could help strengthen their government as a whole, and could help shape a new government.
4. Because everyone is concerned with it and if we were to stop it then it could mess up things there.
5. It claims this because no matter what choices either country makes about anything, every one will know about it and will judge it some way.
6. He either wants to destroy it or at least find a common ground.
7. I think this strategy is effective. If it helps the citizens safety the use military forces. I don't care if its not recommended, if it keeps me safe then use it.
Hannah Glasscock
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. To draw the Russians into a political process that would ultimately replace Syria’s government of President Bashar al-Assad
3. It could help strengthen Mr. Assad, It could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government if Mr. Assad is pushed out of power, and It also helps Russia cement its strategic interests in what experts say is its most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4. It shows how the Americans have flown hundreds of air missions into ISIS and ISIL and now Russia is trying to do the same thing to the western part of Syria.
5. Because everyone is wanting to know what America and Russia are going to do when they are trying to put equipment and machines in the same place when they are suppose to help each other not try and make one look better than the other.
6. He believes that if they want to destroy ISIL and also have a political settlement with respect to Syria then Assad cannot stay they for a long period of time.
7. I believe that this strategy is some what effective but the US should never really have to resort to military force when trying to achieve its aim in the region because people shouldn't just be scared of a country for its powerful military force but also that the country is just very powerful and determined when trying to do the right thing for the people and the safety of other countries.
mills harrison
ReplyDelete1.4 years
2.they do not like Russia coming into the country unannounced
3.gaining allies/ more military power/ foreign policies
4.because Mr. Assad is the leader of Syria and of Isis and isil
5. because the whole world is watching to see how the U.S. and Russia act together
6. he wants the betrayer out of office
7.i think it is effective because if we use millitary force on russia the will use it back and the we will start a world war
Colby Free 3rd
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. Were against the war but they are now involved because they realized that they may be able to stop the war.
3. It could help strengthen Mr. Assad, it could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government if Mr. Assad is pushed out of power, and it also helps Russia cement its strategic interests in what experts say is its most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4. They are helping them now but don't really plan on getting close with them.
5. Because the people of ISIS are watching every move we make in helping them. They may seem to be being very skeptical.
6.to turn convergence on tactical military issues into a collective and viable political strategy to stabilize Syria and end the war.
7. I mean I personally don't think its helping our country any by helping the enemy, but i also don't really understand this question so i may be way off topic.
Rett Saele
ReplyDelete1. 2011- present day Syria
2. their efforts are pointless. Its just going to make things worse.
3.Help Strengthen Assad, put Moscow in better position to shape formation of new Syria, and it will help Russia cement its strategic interests in the most important middle east military outpost in decades.
4. America's military is sent into Syria all the time to deal with ISIS and Russia has a strong military presence there now, so they don't want to accidentally run into each other.
5. Because Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the middle east, and they support their allies efforts.
6. Wants him to stay short term.
7. Russia is back on the train of Imperialism. The only reason they're really there is to gain control of a big middle east head post for military gain. The strategy is the same as its always been. We are walking around the issue trying to keep the peace with everyone. We need to grow a pair,step up, and let Russia know who's Boss.
Jake Presley
ReplyDelete2nd period
1) Four years
2) They were against Russia having a military build up in Syria and issued a strong warning to Russia
3) It could strengthen Mr. Assadd. It could put Moscow in the position to shape the new Syrian government. It helps Russia with its interest in the new Middle East military outpost.
4) There is caution to prevent Russian and American forces, from crossing by mistake. However, the main concern is still focused on putting an end to ISIL and coming to a political agreement with respect to Syria.
5) Many believe that Russia is making an effort to under cut American influence in the region.
6) For him and his cronies to be taken out of office over a period of time.
7) I feel that we should take all steps possible to keep from using military action. Military action should be used as a last resort in the situation.
John Threadgill
ReplyDelete1. Four years
2. They're neutral and just stay out of each other's way.
3. It could help strengthen Mr. Assad,it could put Moscow stronger postition to shape Syria's government if Mr. Assad is pushed out of power.
4. The Americans have flown hundreds of air missions to strike ISIS.
5. Jeffrey states that the U.S. and Russia are being viewed to see how they respond to situatoion. Jeffrey says that Russia is having a dynamic on the Middle East and showing it supports its allies strongly, while the U.S. shoud be taking efforts against Assad.
6.He believes that ISIS cannot be destroyed while Assad is still in power.
7.I believe the U.S. should take military actions to achieve its goals,because it makes us look weak when we sit back and do nothing. America is no longer an ideal country that it was in the last few years. When we sit back and do nothing constantly it makes us look like a lazy country and lazy citizens. We need to prove to other nations that we're not afraid to fight for what we want.
James Atchison
ReplyDelete1st period
1: 4 years
2: Russian action in Syria is predicted to fail.
3: It could help strengthen Mr. Assad, put Moscow in a stronger position to shape a new Syrian government, and help Russia cement strategic interests.
4: They want to make sure American and Russian forces do not run into each other by mistake.
5: Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the Middle East, yet America is just sitting there for the most part.
6: While the main focus is on ISIL, Kerry's goal concerning Assad is to remove him, so that a durable solution to the civil war can be achieved.
7: While it doesn't do any harm, I don't think the strategy is too effective, however, if both sides want to cooperate, then it could be effective. I don't think the US should resort to military force to achieve it's goals because we have our own problems here on American soil that need to be fixed. I believe it would be healthy for America to take a back seat on world affairs so we can make progress addressing those issues.
Na'Daisha Mckinstry
ReplyDelete1.Four years
2. they are against the send a lot of military to Syriya
3. it could better influence Moscow's leadership role, it could streghten Mr.Assad,it could give Moscow an Mjiddle Eastern post.
4.ISIS is an terririst group/state to us that could potentially be harmful
5. because if this gets out of hand and they disagee on something a war could happen between Russia and the US
6. the goal is to get al-Assad out of office
7.I see the yes and no. The yes is because we need out of state post and to have a connection around the world. The no will be because we are not in that hemisphere and what happens over there is over there and not here, we could/ should keep updates on it unless they deliberatly attacks us. Their strategy now is effective but they are going to have to change it if they don't comply.
Na'Daisha Mckinstry
ReplyDelete1.Four years
2. they are against the send a lot of military to Syriya
3. it could better influence Moscow's leadership role, it could streghten Mr.Assad,it could give Moscow an Mjiddle Eastern post.
4.ISIS is an terririst group/state to us that could potentially be harmful
5. because if this gets out of hand and they disagee on something a war could happen between Russia and the US
6. the goal is to get al-Assad out of office
7.I see the yes and no. The yes is because we need out of state post and to have a connection around the world. The no will be because we are not in that hemisphere and what happens over there is over there and not here, we could/ should keep updates on it unless they deliberatly attacks us. Their strategy now is effective but they are going to have to change it if they don't comply.
~Heather Williams
ReplyDelete1. Syria has been embroiled in a four-year-old civil war.
2. More than 200 Russian marines have been sent to the air base, and temporary housing has been built for as many as 1,500 personnel. on Friday confirmed that four Russian Su-27 fighter aircraft had been deployed to the air base in recent days, along with four large Hip troop-transport helicopters and four Hind helicopter gunships. more than 20 Condor transport plane flights had delivered weapons and equipment to the air base in the past 10 days.
3. The Russian military buildup in Syria could help strengthen Mr. Assad. Secondly, if he is pushed out of power, it can put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government. Lastly, it helps Russia finalize its strategic interests in the most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4. America's focus remains on destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with respect to Syria. The Americans have flown hundreds of air missions in Syria striking the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Also Administration officials have long argued that Mr. Assad’s brutal and often indiscriminate crackdown against its foes has encouraged support for ISIS or ISIL.
5. Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the Middle East and demonstrating that it supports its allies to the hilt. The White House is sitting there and worrying about de-conflicting airplanes when we should be upping our efforts against Assad. The article says this because it shows that other countries pay attention to what is going on to discover who should be their allies or enemies. Also because some believe this to be an undercut to the American influence in the region.
6. John Kerry's goal is a political transition that leads to a stable, whole, united, secular Syria. To turn convergence on tactical military issues into a collective and viable political strategy to stabilize Syria and end the war.
7. This strategy should play out and see how effective it may be. It could be very effective if they act fast, but smart. The US should resort to military force to achieve its goals as soon as they are caught off guard and possibly planning what they should do. As soon as they are ready of course as well.
John McDonough
ReplyDeleteThe Syrian civil war started four years ago. America's official stance on Russian action in Syria could escalate the civil war and does not approve of the Russian actions. Russia taking a stronger role in Syria could strengthen their ally Assad, give Russia more power to reshape Syria after the war, and gaim more influence throughout the entire region by demonstrating that they fully support their allies. Americans are concerned that fighting against Assad is drawing people away from fighting Islamic State and Russian support of Assad may make this problem even worse by either increasing anti-Assad sentiments or by lengthening the war. The US and Russia are both world superpowers whose involvement could radically change the situation in Syria as well as the entire middle east. John Kerry wants Assad out of power eventually because he believes it will be necessary in order to restore peace to Syria. When dealing with Vladimir Putin, diplomatic negotiations seem to have little effect. Even disrupting the Russian economy by manipulating oil prices hasn't stopped Putin from meddling in foreign affairs. However, a direct military intervention would not be appropriate given the instability of the region and the backing of the opposition by another superpower. I believe one route of action the US should take is proposing a no fly zone over syria to be enforced by the UN and if the UN wont then by the US itself. By being involved in this way the US could prevent the massacre of civilians by aerial attack and render the russian su-27s entirely useless without the US being drawn into a civil war, disrupting the already rocky diplomacy with Russia, or, in the case of the UN not supporting a no fly zone, only overstepping the UN in a minor wsy in comparison to Russia.
Cameron Rico
ReplyDelete1.) they have been in a four year civil war
2.) They dont think its going to work and that its "doomed to fail"
3.)t could help strengthen Mr. Assad, whom Russia has long backed and who has suffered a number of military reversals in recent months. It could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government if Mr. Assad is pushed out of power. It also helps Russia cement its strategic interests in what experts say is its most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4.) They want to end Isis and isils plans so they have a greater focus on it
5.) Because people are waiting for the white house to do something
6.) That he should remain in power for a short time
7.) I think that the diplomatic way is better because, violence just makes bigger problems for everyone and it makes it so we arent threatening them. But using fire against fire is never a good idea because everyone would be effected by the explosion
Cameron Simon
ReplyDelete1)four years
2)Doomed to failure
3)Strengthen Assad,Moscow in improve position, and help Russia cement its strategic interests.
4)It is building support for ISIS
5)Russia is trying to change its security dynamic and support is allies to a hilt.
6)Keep him in office for only a short term.
7)It is a good strategy to use because it can bring peace to some regions without violence and only should send military forces if they attack us.
Julie brown
ReplyDelete1. How long as Syria been embroiled in a civil war?
4 years
2. What has been America's official stance on Russian action in Syria?
We condemned Russia more, but then we hoped that Russia might draw a more constructive role.
3. In what three ways can the Russian-military buildup in Syria serve the interests of Russia's government?
It could help strengthen Mr. Assad. It could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government. It also helps Russia cement its strategic interests.
4. How do American concerns about ISIL and ISIS play into the situation in Syria?
political settlement with respect to Syria. Wanting to find common ground
5. Why does the article claim that "the whole region is watching this" (the actions taken by the US and Russia)?
Russia is trying to change the security dynamic and demonstrating that it supports its allies The White House is sitting there and worrying about de-conflicting airplanes when we should be upping our efforts against Assad.
6. What is John Kerry's goal when it comes to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad?
Have a conversation about stabling and uniting secular Syria.
7. In this familiar situation (think back to last year's Russian advances in Ukraine), the White House's actions seem bent on trying to settle this present situation diplomatically. In your opinion, how effective is this strategy? At what point, if any, should the US resort to military force to achieve its aims in the region?
I think, though this is completely my opinion and many will probably oppose it, that we should never use war as a means of winning or losing. War shouldn’t never be an optioning solving a dispute of any kind. I think discussions should be held and a compromise made, because innocent lives should never be taken. And when you show a kid that it’s okay to take a life it teaches them that its okay to kill. I think now that talking things out isn’t a good strategy because everyone is use to violence.
Austin Levins
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. America Believes that Russia should interfere as little as possible.
3. It could Strengthen Mr. Assad, It could give Russia an important position in the forming of a new government, and it could give them an important base in the middle east.
4. It could result in America accidentally striking Russian troops causing all out war.
5. They are watching because they are curious how Russia could change the security dynamic
6. He wishes the president would be removed.
7. This strategy was effective. It did not end in war. I believe the situatiuon must be beyond Dire in order to resort to war, and in turn killing thousands.
Brooke Allen
ReplyDelete1) For four years.
2) America wishes for Russia to stay out of Syria.
3) It can help to strengthen Assad, it can put Moscow in a better position to shape Syria's government, and helps to solidify Russia's strategic interests in their most middle east outpost in decades.
4) America has sent hundreds of air missiles into Syria and hitting it.
5) Russia is trying to change security dynamics in the middle east and America is worrying about de-conflicting planes.
6) He wants to come up with a plan to end the war and to stabilize Syria.
7) I think that, when looking at the past, that it doesn't seem to be very effective. I also think that US should resort to military force only if it is absolutely necessary and there is no tactic to get around it.
Sam Andrus
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. We are trying not to run into Russia by mistake.
3. It could help support Assad, whom Russia defends and it could help Moscow become more influential in the redevelopment of Syria if Assad is pushed out of power and it is strategic for Russia to make secure holdings in a very important Middle East military outpost.
4. Americans don't like the war involving the U.S.
5. Because other countries, like Bulgaria, have somewhat been involved in this and everything that Russia or the U.S. decides to do will have an effect, which may be bad or good, on the surrounding areas.
6. Kerry wants there to be a political transition in Syria that will result in a stable, whole, united nation and it is undetermined what Assad's place in this will be. He says that this is what we need to have more conversation on.
7. I think it is effective to try and end most of these situations diplomatically. It causes less people to get hurt and less damage to be done to society. At the point of threats toward the U.S. will it then be necessary to use more force.
Michael Ayala
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. They are trying to be aware of there actions and of there ties to Syria
3. By giving more power to Assad, put Moscow in a strategic power, or give Russia strategic military outposts.
4. They believe that they are trying to turn people against them.
5. Because they are trying to see which country has more power.
6. To get them not to communicate much with each other or give them any thoughts of forming an alliance.
7. I believe that by doing this they are more likely to be setting up an advantage for themselves. They should not be getting together to discuss this matter because of the danger of a threat occurring.
Katelyn Hardy
ReplyDelete1. Over 4 years
2. The American stance has been to draw the Russians into a political process that would ultimately replace Syria’s government of president
3. First, it could help strengthen Mr. Assad. It could also put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government. It also helps Russia cement its strategic interests in what experts say is its most important new Middle East military outpost in decades.
4. They are scared that one of the Russian planes is going to get hijacked by Syrian terrorist.
5. The White House is trying to make the best out of a situation in which it feels powerless.
6. He wants to get him overthrown
7. Yes, it is an effective strategy. They should only resort to military force when it is completely necessary.
Aaron Pugh
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. They do not like what Russia is doing.
3. It will help their ally, help them get control of the Syrian government, and put them in the best military outpost.
4.America is trying to get rid of ISIS, which can't be done with Assad in power. 1
5. Because it is a battle between Russia and Syria.
6. He wants to get rid of Assad.
7.I believe it is wrong but it should be used in certain circumstances.
Hannah Jackson
ReplyDelete1.) Two weeks
2.) America and Russia have been avoiding each other
3.) They have sent tanks, other equipments (guns), and marines and combat aircraft.
4.) America is bombing Syria to destroy ISIL and ISIS. America is worried that Russia will aid ISIS or ISIL.
5.) Because they are worried that this civil war will creak out a new war.
6.) His goal is to push Bashar al-Assad out of power.
7.) I believe it is a good strategy to talk things out and try to resolve them but there is a point where people won't listen to your conditions or won't let you talk it out. I believe if the situation is bad enough then yes, the U.S should resort to military forces.
Abby Nelson
ReplyDelete1. For over four years.
2. They are trying to make the best out of something that they feel is powerless to avoid.
3.One, It could help Mr. Assad strengthen his position. Second, It could put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the Syrian government if Mr. Assad is gone. Third, It also helps Russia with its strategic interests in the new Middle East military outpost.
4. It is because of their concerns that they want to draw the Russians into a political process that would replace Syria’s government of President Bashar al-Assad.
5. Since White House is only worrying about de-conflicting airplanes when they should be putting in more effort against Assad.
6. He believes in destroying ISIL and also on a political settlement with Syria, which cannot work with the long-term presence of Assad.
7. I think that it depends on how large of an issue is at hand. In this situation, i believe that they can only try to settle it diplomatically for so long. At some point, if nothing changes, there may need to be some military action taken. However, this could be an instance ,like in the past, where they could jump to using military action too quickly when it could have been resolved diplomatically.
Frankie Malveo
ReplyDelete1. How long as Syria been embroiled in a civil war? 4 years.
2. What has been America's official stance on Russian action in Syria?
What they are doing will end in failure.
3. In what three ways can the Russian-military buildup in Syria serve the interests of Russia's government? The buildup would back Assad, put Moscow on a strong position, and get Russia connections to the middle east.
4. How do American concerns about ISIL and ISIS play into the situation in Syria?
Because ISIS is near Syria and attacking could cause a problem.
5. Why does the article claim that "the whole region is watching this" (the actions taken by the US and Russia)?
Because Russia showing that they support their allies while America is worried about "trivial" things.
6. What is John Kerry's goal when it comes to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad?
To find different ways to handle the Russia - Syria situation.
7. In this familiar situation (think back to last year's Russian advances in Ukraine), the White House's actions seem bent on trying to settle this present situation diplomatically. In your opinion, how effective is this strategy? At what point, if any, should the US resort to military force to achieve its aims in the region?
Diplomacy does not seem to be that effective with the Russians. I think if they make any more advances that are a huge and I mean huge concern then we should start with drones and if that doesn't work then we should use troops.
Peyton Ochoa
ReplyDelete1. Four years
2. They have mostly stayed after it.
3. They've deployed multiple weapons of tanks and such.
4. We would like to continue the fight against the ISIL and ISIS so we are more concerned with the forces against these groups.
5. We haved tried twice to help settle this dispute twice and failed twice.
6. He would like to unite Syeria.
7.Very effective, I do not believe American malitia should become involved with the battle.
Grace Glasscock
ReplyDelete1. 4 years
2. The Obama Administration said that if Russia's military force grows in Syria then a confrontation with the US is possible. Obama also said that Russia's actions will not prevail.
3. Strengthen President Assad, put Moscow at a stronger point to mold the structure of a new Syrian government if the president is put out of power, and it will also help Russia settle its strategic position.
4. Our focus is to kill, or destroy ISIS. If we accomplish this then Syria will no longer be under the control of ISIS.
5. In the Middle East, not just Syria, Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in order to demonstrate that it supports its allies. The White House, though, is trying to resolve the conflicts about Russian airplanes when the actual problem is with Assad.
6. It has been declared that ISIS can not be destroyed and a political settlement in respect to Syria can not be achieved with long term presence of Assad.
7. The diplomatic strategy does not work very great. Now is the time.
1. 4 years
ReplyDelete2. hoping Russia will draw a more constructive role
3. Strengthen Mr. Assad. Put Moscow in a stronger position. Helps Russia cement its strategic interests.
4. wanting to find common ground
5. Russia is trying to change the security dynamic while the US sits around and worries about de-conflicting airplanes
6. uniting secular Russia
7. I believe the US should only resort to military action when our borders or our resources. Unless it is affecting our safety or our peace we should frankly keep to ourselves.
Talia Gordon
ReplyDelete1. 4 yrs.
2. That's it's doomed to fail
3. Help strengthen Mr. Assad, put Moscow in a stronger position to shape the formation of a new Syrian government of Mr. Assad is put out of power, helps Russia cement its strategic interests.
4. They want it to be destroyed.
5. Russia is trying to change things and the U.S. is sitting there worrying about de-conflicting airplanes instead of fighting against Assad.
6. To either remove him from office or find a common ground with him
7. Yes, because there is no reason to use military force unless they have used it first or have made a major threat against the United States.