US interests best served by remaining uninvolved in Syria

Syrian Civil War

March 15 marks the sixth anniversary of the start of the Syrian Civil War, a conflict with no resolution in sight. As the Russian-backed Assad regime battles various United States backed rebel groups for control, some in the U.S. are asking if our government is doing enough to resolve the conflict. But this is one war in the region the United States ought to sit out.

The U.S. and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations have been targeting terrorist groups, including the Islamic State, using airstrikes delivered by drones and naval aviation in an attempt to support the Syrian rebels. Additionally, the U.S. has also set aside millions of dollars in humanitarian aid to assist civilians that are caught in the crossfire. Lastly, the United States has trained and equipped rebel soldiers.

On the opposing side, Russia supplies arms to Assad’s forces and has sent military advisors to support their efforts. Neither side in the conflict is innocent, as both the Assad regime and the rebels have used controversial means of conducting warfare that are banned under the Geneva convention.

Is the U.S capable of doing more? Absolutely. Thanks to a fleet of advanced aircraft carriers, the U.S is capable of projecting more power than any other nation on the planet. Additionally, advanced fighter aircraft make conducting airstrikes relatively safe for U.S. pilots. Realistically, the U.S. could even orchestrate a full-fledged invasion much like it did Iraq under the Bush administration; however, just because you can, does not mean you should.

The West has a complicated history with the Middle East; one that should be learned from. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States intervened by supplying arms and advanced weapon systems to the Mujahedeen, which was dedicated to repelling the communist invaders. This worked well for both the United States and the Mujahedeen, and effectively turned the conflict into the Soviet’s version of the Vietnam War.

Unfortunately, when the Taliban came to power, they were still equipped with the advanced weapons the U.S. had supplied their less radical predecessors with, and weapons that the Soviets left behind.

Prior to proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, the United States also helped Saddam Hussein come to power in the 1960s, a decision it would come to regret later. Much like the Assad regime in present day Syria, Hussein’s government was also guilty of various atrocities against its own people.

When the United States removed Hussein from power after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it inadvertently created a power vacuum, which resulted in political instability and a rise in terrorism. Many of the weapons and vehicles, such as High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, that were supplied to the new Iraqi government after the war, fell into the hands various terrorist groups when the rebuilding country was at high risk.

Historically, intervention in the Middle East has not worked out for the U.S., and there is no reason to think it will now. While fully intervening now may seem like a viable solution, doing so will perpetuate long term conflict much like past attempts have.

As hard as it may be, it is time for the United States to sit on the side lines. The best way to combat Russia would be to let them get bogged down in the Middle East, much like the former Soviet Union did. U.S. intervention will only ensure another prolonged conflict at the cost of thousands of American and Middle Eastern lives.