Group items tagged

This article is about John Kerry's diplomatic proposal to Syria to give up its chemical weapons in order to avoid US intervention. Russia, a close ally of Assad's regime, has supported Kerry's proposal and is discouraging Syria from using chemical weapons, if it will deter an American strike on Syria.

This is an important development, especially in the light of Putin's letter. Hopefully all of the countries will cooperate to make this non-violent solution a reality.

A deep "insider's view" into the civil war occurring in Syria. Reveals the brutal crimes against humanity that the Syrian government is inflicting upon its citizens including murder rape, and unprecedented violence.

It is really interesting to read an article from the point of view of a person in Syria. The author is clearly begging for help for Syria. I think the last line is incredibly powerful, where the author says that Syria is part of the world and the world needs to help. Unfortunately for the author, not every other country agrees.

This is an interesting perspective on what is going on in Syria. I found it pretty accurate how the author described western powers as masking their "political inertia with empty rhetoric about a 'political solution'". I had no idea that over 7 million people (1/3 of the Syrian population) were IDPs as a result of this conflict. It's truly a horrible story. It's also interesting how the author describes the western powers' switch from being against the rebels to seeing their actions as justified.

Israeli air force strikes military site in western Syria. Israel has got involved in the past if they were worried about chemical weapons. Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) in Syria suspected of developing sarin gas weapon.

Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart reach an agreement between Russia and the US intended to reduce conflict in Syria, however agreement is plagued with mistrust and loopholes.

Further development in the relationship between the US and Russia in Syria. John Kerry will meet with Russia's Sergey Lavrov in Lausanne, Switzerland on Saturday along with foreign ministers from a few other countries that support the rebels and possibly Iran (which supports Assad). PS: This article is way more interesting than my first one so I recommend this one more unless you're in the mood to question humanity and be sad.

I read this article and Aleisha's article about the Syrian civil war, and I was surprised at how complicated the conflict is. I also was not aware of the growing tension between the United States and Russia, so it was interesting reading about the power dynamic happening again. The CNN article, published just one day before the NYT article, portrays US involvement very differently, so I'm interested to see how that develops.

The US has decided to pull support for Syria. They are not able to come to agreements with Russia, and after both the US and Russia have dropped bombs that have killed civilians, the ceasefire is "at risk". It is possible that with this the war will be over sooner rather than later with the rebels losing, but it will not be a peaceful end.

I found it interesting how both sides believe the other is "the bad guy" in this situation: US thinks Russia is helping Syrians attack civilians, and Russia is upset that the US 'accidentally' dropped a bomb. I hope that the ceasefire will hold out and that the war will be over soon. I wonder if there is something that can be done for the end to have a chance of being peaceful.

In the two days since a deal for cease-fire in Syria was reached by the US and Russia, at least 91 people have died from Russian and Syrian government airstrikes in rebel-controlled areas.

I thought this was an interesting article because it called into question the authority Obama really has on the decision to use armed forces in Syria. Since the United States is not directly in danger, the article points out how Obama legally needs to put the decision before the UN security council to make a decision.

I also think it's fascinating that there are parallels drawn between Obama's justification that not intervening in Syria would give the message that Syria's violation of the ban on chemical weapons is okay and Obama's willingness to violate the rule that prohibits use of military force without Security Council authorization. The question raised about which rule is more important is very thought-provoking.

I find it very interesting that the Damascenes' opinions on U.S. intervention seem to differ based on socio-economic status, but yet the majority of them all agree that Obama should be more decisive about his plans for or against invasion. In general, this article surfaces a lot of interesting points to ponder surrounding the conflict in Syria.

The article makes a very important point. U.S. engagement is not aimed at overthrowing Assad and establishing a new political government or regime, rather American involvement is serving as a deterrent for the prevention of chemical weapon usage by other countries. Such reasoning undercuts the moral virtue of American involvement in Syria and will serve to fuel greater anti-American sentiments in the region.

The rapid advance across Syria and Iraq by militant fighters from the Islamic State (IS) group in 2014 threw the region into chaos. The jihadist group, which has fighters from across the world, announced the establishment of a "caliphate" - an Islamic state - stretching from Aleppo in Syria to the province of Diyala in Iraq. This source illustrates the battles currently in Syria with detailed graphics. Additionally, it provides breakdowns of airstrikes and countries' military action within Syria. There is also a map that compares the location of oil and the location of IS controlled territory.

syria government+russia fight with US and allies over airstrikes in civilian populated idlib. +humanitarian crisis and threatened retaliation by US for strikes

Interesting article about how the US has stopped preforming counterterrorism missions in Syria against ISIS, which may allow ISIS to regroup

This situation reflects on Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" in an interesting way. It appears that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad prioritized Syria's relationship with Iran, what some might call a civilizational tie, over the political interests of Syria as an individual state in his decision to turn down a deal with Israel that would have returned the Golan Heights to Syria's control. The discussion of the influence of upcoming elections in Israel and the US on the release of this news also adds an interesting dimension. Is it the Obama administration that is manipulating the facts about these peace talks so as to appear more effective in Middle East policy? Or is it Netanyahu who is misrepresenting his involvement in an effort to appear strong and unyielding towards the rest of the Arab world in an election year?

Interesting!

Assad continues to claim that his regime will prevail in shutting down the now 18 month old rebellion despite a series of recent defections, international sanctions, and the constant outflow of refugees to Turkey and other neighbors. He also has denied rumors that he has gone into hiding. He's generally trying to present himself as firmly in power.

Should other countries or NATO intervene militarily in Syria? Why did former UN Secretary Kofi Annan resign from his post as mediator in the Syrian conflict? Was he right to resign?

Possible non-militant solution to Syria's chemical weapons. Met with skepticism from White House.

I think the divide among Syrian officials and Assad about ceding control of chemical weapons is very interesting. It seems that in addition to gaining Russia's support, Kerry's proposal has also gained the support of many of Syria's top officials including its foreign minister, Wallid al-Moallem. Nevertheless, it appears that Assad is still extremely against giving up Syria's chemical weapons, even if doing so would avert a U.S. strike on Syria.

This article is pretty interesting, it describes how recently some rebel forces in Syria were ambushed by Assad's army. It also puts into perspective just about how many people have been killed through this whole civil war, which I had not known before.

This article is interesting in that it explains the US condoned airstrikes and military presence in Syria from the point of view of Syrian citizens. We've discussed in class how the US has developed a mentality where we assume a) that we are a well-liked global super power and b) that we are morally obligated to get involved in any conflict given our national power/influence. However, this article shows that some Syrian citizens are deeply disturbed by the presence of the United States, as air strikes have destroyed several communities of non-ISIS supporters and have caused numerous casualties. Additionally, the constant air strikes seem to have had the opposite effect of what was intended: many Syrians have developed anti-American attitudes and have begun to identify with ISIS. So, basically, the very actions we have taken to eliminate ISIS have increased public support of the Islamic State. That is not to say that every (or even the majority of) Syrians now support ISIS, but it is interesting to take a look at the repercussions of our actions in the eyes of a nation that is directly affected.