The debate about initiating airstrikes against the civil war in Syria has raised questions all over the world. Different scholars, leaders, and people across the globe have expressed their views towards the ongoing debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the airstrikes towards Syria. The question remains on what effects the airstrikes will have on the civil war in Syria. Moreover, the global goal of international security is the end and eradication of ISIS and other terrorist groups that have adversely affected the economic growth and the peace of almost every country in the world (Brown 240). Therefore, the move made by the United States on airstrikes against Syria would stir mixed reactions based on the effects of the war to end the civil war in Syria.
The war against terrorist groups, such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, in Syria started in 2011, but has hastened recently during the reign of the US President Donald Trump. The president recently authorized the launching of an airstrike on the Syrian government that was in response to the chemical weapons launched by the Syrian government (Schmitt and Christopher 1). The event attracted views from various leaders across the globe, such as the Chinese president Xi Jinping. The Chinese president commented on the incidence claiming that the US president should not authorize such airstrikes. The comment from the Chinese president was seen logical based on the effects of airstrikes towards Syria. For instance, Syria is a country with various types of people who do not necessarily support terrorism such as doctors, business people, children, women, and many more.
Initiating or authorizing airstrikes would mean that the military is centered on the basics of eradicating terrorism but forgets about the safety of the other innocent citizens. “The incidence claimed the lives of many people including children” (Schmitt and Christopher 1). The Chinese president claimed that he was concerned with the situation in Syria and would recommend calling for a political settlement which would solve various issues. The dilemma also falls towards China because they could also be forced to participate in the war against terrorism and access to nuclear weapons. For instance, North Korea is known for its access and manufacture of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the Chinese president ascertained that using airstrikes would cause harm in the long-run and should be reconsidered.
Another issue that could be affected by the use of airstrikes in Syria is the presence of Russia in the Syria. The big question is “What and how will Russia respond to the incidence concerning the Syrian Airstrike” (Schmitt and Christopher 1). The Presence of Russia in Syria has raised questions about their purpose and their views towards the US airstrike. Russia has emerged as a strong nation that has developed their use of military weapons and advanced technology. Therefore, the Russian military could use their weapons against the US planes. Furthermore, the airstrikes can affect the lives of the Russians in Syria and Russia is well-known that it could retaliate towards the American government. The US has to be careful about their activities in the Syrian land as a way of avoiding conflicts.
The fight against ISIS in Syria could as well bring peace between courtiers all over the world. For instance, the strikes could help eradicating the civil war in Syria (Brown 240). The plan of initiating the missile and airstrikes can help in advocating for the removal of the Syrian president. The effect would help in eradicating the civil war that has been seen as a product of the current Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad. “The end of civil war in Syria will help the process of ending the rise terrorisms.” (Brown 240). The end of the Syrian civil war can as well minimize the cases of the Syrian government use of chemicals to poison the citizens which have led to the deaths of thousands of Syrian population.
The debate contributes towards the understanding of better techniques that can be utilized by the US government in winning the war in Syria. If the US is serious in fighting the civil war in Syria and engaging in eradicating the American dreaded enemy, terrorism, the government should enhance the performance by introducing other strategies that are lesser harmful (Sharp and Christopher 43). For example, the US should support and fund various rebel groups in Syria that are fighting the regime of the Syrian president as well as the eradication of ISIS groups. The strategy would see the enhancement and use of minimal airstrikes that are seeing to be destructive.
The use of airstrikes in Syria has adverse effects on the destruction of properties as well as the killing of innocent people. The use of an explosive would be seen as destructive because many properties such as building, hospitals, schools, airports, roads, and other transportation system are destructed (Mayer 830). Therefore, some people have argued that the use of airstrikes has many negative effects than positive ones. Furthermore, the debate suggests that the US and other nations should negotiate with Russia, Iran, and other neighboring countries to pressure the Syrian president to step down. The move would enhance peace within the area and end the civil war. Similarly, stepping down of the Syrian president would be the end of rebels that are rampant in the country.
The contributors towards the debate also suggested that the US should use the airstrikes to drive ISIS people far from the civilians (Sharp and Christopher 43). Driving the ISIS members out of major towns would enhance the reclaiming of territories by their rightful owners such as the Eastern Syria Arab Tribes who have been affected by the rise of ISIS and Bashar regime. The US should as well equip and fund the free Syrian army or the Syrian opposition which would act accordingly based on their expertise and knowledge of their country. Mayer (830) claimed that Obama termed the Syrian opposition as “the best counterweight to ISIS and Assad.” The system would help to eradicate the rise of ISIS and can see the end of the Syrian president regime.