U.S. Intervention

If my opponent has any disagreements we can figure out the definitions in PM or comments, but I have a feeling the definition won’t be of any problem. Should is defined as: indicating a more desirable state. Ob: “desirable state” is under the side constraint of culpability. Wasserman writes, “…a single victim is permitted to kill any number of intentional aggressors if it is necessary for his survival…. One who kills an intentional aggressor need not worry if his act incites rather than deters further aggression…The person (i. e. an aggressor) deciding whether to burn his neighbor's field is required to take…indirect consequences into account; their irrelevance to an act of self-defense strongly suggests that it is not the consequences of particular acts that are being weighed in the balance. ” [1] Two important points are derived from this evidence: First, that a victim of aggression is morally permitted to defend themselves even if it brings harm to the aggressor. Second, that a victim is not morally bound to indirect consequences. For example, if I was being attacked on the street by an individual with a group of his friends I am not morally responsible for the potential harm that might come to his friends if they step in to defend the aggressor. These two points should be intuitively true, but for the sake of the debate I have laid that out. Thus, C1: Self-Defense and Humanitarianism [2] [3] According to UN Monitors and reports by Amnesty International, at this point in the massacre in Syria around 10,000 people have been killed with a mortality rate of 100 victims a day. So assuming that is correct, in the next 5 days the rate will be up to 10,500 and so on. It must be noted that these are innocent civilians and not aggressor militants – the protests all were peaceful until Assad issued executive/military orders to crack down on the protestors. By extension this gave Assad supporters carte blanche justification to pursue their own massacres even in the last few months targeting women and children. Moreover, independent reports by Amnesty reveal that the vast majority of killings done by the government are not against armed protestors, but rather random extra-judicial killings done in private homes and villages. It is also reported that killings are done against family members who refuse to tell or do not know the whereabouts of other relatives. This indicates two points: first, that the true Assad military strength is weak otherwise they would be actively seeking armed protestors and second that the Assad government is promoting a type of psychological warfare in order to drain any status quo or future resistance. C2: Strategic U. S. Interest: Undermining Iranian Regional Influence [4] It is of no surprise and it is to everyone’s common knowledge (I hope) that Iran is attempting to increase its regional control and to potentially exert regional hegemony. A main difficulty Iran has is its regional isolation, being one of the only Shia dominant nations and being the most powerful of those nations. This is a major problem for Iran because it must compete against the U. S. backed Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, Iran has instituted a very clever tactic in weakening its rivals: Iran has created a strong tie with Syrian, which is now effectively an Iranian satellite state, and using Syria as a way to promote asymmetric warfare and terrorism in the region. This effectiveness, however, is dependent on Syria’s current Assad regime and loyalty to the Iranian state. This is true because Iranian isolation and distance from the Levant and Saudi Peninsula makes it functionally and geographically improbable and disadvantageous to promote its interests without a third party involved (being Syria). Thus, the U. S. in its regional competition with Iran has an important strategic interest in creating a fully isolated Iran and from detaching Iran from its proxy state. Solidifying Israeli and Saudi dominance in the region will make Iranian adventurism highly unlikely, if not impossible for the Iranian regime. C3: Strategic U. S. Interest: Regional Instability and Extremism [5] Al Qaeda and other jihadist affiliated groups seek to establish a Caliphate in the region dominated by wahhabism and other ultra-conservative branches of Islam. The Arab Spring is a perfect opportunity for these groups to gain a foothold in the dissident movement. This has recently been proven true in the election of a Muslim Brotherhood candidate in Egypt. Amidst the dissident groups, the Islamists are the most organized and funded groups which give them a clear edge over democratic sympathizers. At this point these groups have not been able to take a major foothold in the Syrian Free Army (SFA), however as time passes, violence escalates and an eventual civil war breaks out it is the prime chance for Islamists to exert their influence in the SFA. This is a fact the U. S. cannot allow to happen because just as Iranian influence diminishes regionals stability and drastically moves the polarity in different directions, so does increased islamist activity. Regional instability would increase drastically while multiple factions vie for power within a power vacuum. The solution to this problem is for the U. S. to aid the SFA and ensure that islamist groups do not gain control. This can be done in multiple ways such as instituting arms trades, having CIA backed training and having military assistance. C4: U. S. Inaction Leads to U. S. Decline [6] Robert Kagan in his book The World America Made demonstrates that the U. S. ’ hegemony has been the reason for the increased human rights movements, a decrease in great power struggles and the promotion of free trade around the globe. All of these have contributed to increased quality of life and global stability. The problem now, however, is that U. S. inaction will be the reason it loses its dominant role in the world. This is true because global events are shaped in part by simple perception – if the U. S. demonstrates its strength, other nations are put at risk for adventurist behavior; if the U. S. demonstrates weakness, other nations need not be worried about adventurist behavior. This is highly problematic because stability is put at great risk when the world sees many nations looking to adventurism and expansionism. We can see this has begun: Iran and North Korea are seeking nuclear weapons, radical groups are finding new sanctuaries in nations such as Yemen and Somalia, China is becoming more belligerent in the East China Sea and the Indian Oceans, and Russia is becoming adventurist in Central Asia. Obama made a crucial mistake and we are already seeing the consequences. Obama stated to the world that Assad must accept democracy or step down…and what have we done? Nothing of major substance and more rhetoric. Impact? Russia began selling weapons to the Assad regime. What does this tell of? This tells us that Russia is now unafraid of backlash against their own adventurist actions, especially in light of Syria and also aiding and abetting Iranian nuclear ambitions. U. S. hegemony is now being directly addressed by the Russians and in other ways the Chinese. The U. S. must act on Syria now to back up the words of Obama and send a signal to the world that the U. S. is still in control. Sources [1] Wasserman. “Justifying Self-Defense,” Philosophy & Public Affairs [2] . http://www.independent.co.uk... [3] . http://tvnz.co.nz... [4] CSIS. U. S. and Iranian Strategic Competition. [5] . http://blogs.reuters.com... [6] Kagan. The World America Made.