North Korea

Too often are Presidents, politicians, and everyday Prince Charming’s use North Korea as another excuse for the United States to get themselves involved in another nation’s internal affairs.  Most often, this desire for American involvement is due to our dedication to democracy, and attempting to implement it around the world in order to form a strong globalist coalition of democracies.  However, such a fantasy is just that – a fantasy.  There are complexities, intricacies, and nuances within every nation that none of us will be able to understand as outsiders.  We believe that American democracy is a round peg, and every other nation happens to be a round hole.  This is simply a fallacy.  North Korea, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of our failed interjections are triangular and square holes, but we, the persistent child, force the peg in regardless.

This is certainly not to say, however, that North Korea is given a clean record and should not be influenced otherwise.  Though, when we decide that, since our system of government and way of life is superior to theirs, we must force them to adhere to it, we find the flaws in our own ideals.  It is clear that the United States, free of human rights atrocities like the DPRK, can serve as a model to not only the Kim family, but other nations around the world.  However, we cannot allow ourselves to force this onto them.  To do so downplays and ignores those intricacies and nuances that each nation holds.  The best thing, at this point, that the United States could do, would simply be to serve as a model for North Korea to follow.  Although this is inefficient, it is much more efficient and effective than forcing it. 

Further, this is only referencing American policy on the internal affairs of North Korea and their blatant human rights violations.  There continues to be an ever-present external threat to the United States posed by North Korea, which should be handled otherwise.  The nuclear threat that the DPRK poses is real, and diplomacy is the only present way to alleviate that threat.  We have seen Presidents flaunt their attempts at diplomacy with North Korea for decades, although none seem to have made any progress.  Frankly, certain Presidents from the 1990’s made things significantly worse.

Diplomacy with North Korea seems to be a very challenging task, which it certainly is.  However, it is not impossible.  There is an abundance of stigma surrounding the nation which is almost completely negative.  This stigma creates most of the difficulty in working with them, since it is considerably frowned upon to cooperate with nations that commit such heinous acts upon their people.  If we were able, as Americans, to blind ourselves to these things and make an honest attempt to help these oppressed peoples, we may be able to see good results.  Kim Jong Un is a man that, although crazy, would be able to rationalize a discussion if given the right opportunity.  Our leaders have spent too long demeaning North Korean leaders, while at the same time, attempting to have diplomatic discussions.  Two such things are simply mutually exclusive.

The Global Influence of North Korea

            One of the biggest issues of international security currently is that of North Korea (also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK). The most obvious of potential threats the nation poses to the world is that of nuclear war. North Korea currently poses a great threat to countries such as South Korea and Japan, who are within range of its short-range missiles and may potentially pose a great threat to the rest of the world, and especially the United States. Beyond these risks, however, there also remain several other reasons to focus on North Korea and its potential impact on the world, from its geopolitical location, to its leader, human rights violations and alliances.

            In regards to the most obvious potential threat North Korea poses -nuclear war- many may argue that based on international experiences with the Cold War, North Korea is actually not much of a threat. As no one launched any nuclear weapons then, no one will utilize their nuclear arsenal now, for the same reason they didn’t then: mutually assured destruction. While that may potentially be true, there always remains the risk that Kim Jon Un may decide to act anyway, for whatever reason anyone chooses to believe: from cold-blooded, calculated cruelty, to a mass tantrum stemming from insanity and/ or immaturity and egocentrism.

            Beyond that, North Korea also poses a threat to international security due to its relationships with nearby countries such as China, with whom it shares a border and is immensely economically reliant. China holds great control over North Korea and its future actions, as it accounts for “89% of DPRK foreign trade” (Lecture 10). However, it also does not want a change in regime, for a multitude of reasons. If the North Korean regime falls, it fears an influx of refugees into China, something which it does not wish to deal with. China also fears intervening too much, as North Korea is guilty of committing terrible human rights abuses on a large scale, and pressuring change in the nation would only serve to highlight China’s own human rights abuses (such as the conditions for their factory workers). This is something that would greatly impact Chinese power, as well as trade, primarily with countries such as the U.S.  This fact alone greatly hinders any efforts to absolve the many threats North Korea poses, however, it also could potentially be utilized to solve many issues, with both North Korea, and China.

            China is one of the largest producers of consumer goods in the world. Many of the goods it produces is for western countries, most notably, the U.S. Perhaps if some form of trade sanctions or regulations could be implemented by, say the United Nations, on China and its production abilities, it could motivate China to positively utilize its influence over North Korea. Currently, one of the only things standing in the way of China properly helping the rest of the world curb North Korea’s threat level is the motivation to do so. If there was a way that could curb economic advance for China, even temporarily, perhaps such change could be inspired (along with, potentially some positive change for China’s human rights issues, if implemented correctly). This, of course, is relatively unlikely, unless such regulations could be designed to not negatively impact those countries and corporation’s dependent on Chinese labor to build their products at a cheap rate. It is also likely that Russia, unless in on the agreement, with help bail China out of any issues, as it wants its fellow communist country to succeed.

            Overall, North Korea and its importance to international security and prosperity cannot be ignored or minimized. Regardless of personal opinions of Kim Jon Un’s dangerousness, of the abilities of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, or of any other such factors, due to its geopolitical positioning and consequent relationships with superpowers such as China, its potential influence on and/ or role in international security affairs cannot be underestimated.

The Deadliest Century

20th Century: The Deadliest In Human History

The "Miracle of the Sun" on October 13, 1917 marked the final apparition of Our Lady of Fatima, having already appeared several times since April of that year. Those Marian apparitions in Portugal were a harbinger, a warning sign of what was to come within the next 100 years: the most brutal century that the world has ever seen. The casualties of conflicts in the 20th century completely dwarfed those of any centuries that came before it. With a much larger global population in the 21st century, greater technology, and civilizations once again retreating to their own ideologies, we may yet see a carnage on par with the 20th century, through war or otherwise. Even if we should believe conventional warfare to be in decline, other human security issues suggest that our era is no less bloody than those of our ancestors.

Our Lady of Fatima appeared during an unprecedented period of history. For the first time, entire societies were pitted against each other directly in war. "The Great War" encapsulated the size of destruction that occurred primarily in "civilized" Europe between 1914 and 1918. The World War I period is also important because the West found themselves in the same predicament then as they do today. In each case, there was a golden age of peace (Belle Epoque and post-Cold War), economic and technological revolutions (Industrial Revolution and Information Age), rising powers leading to hostilities (the rise of Germany and the rise of China/Russia), and political scientists predicting a continued peace, appealing to liberalism and trade interests  ("The End of War" and "The End of History"). Though we do not yet know the end result of our era, World War I ended in around 10 million deaths, and the drastic change of political boundaries that had existed since the Congress of Vienna. Since then, no European state has been able to challenge for dominant global hegemony, at least as an individual power. Therefore, all the "progress" made by humans technologically amounted to nothing socially.

More importantly, the last Fatima apparition occurred three weeks before the Russian Revolution, launching a global ideological war that would last until the 1990s. Having established the first Marxist state, it provided a serious threat to conservatism, liberalism, monarchy, and capitalism all at the same time, ideas that had dominated the world centuries before. World War II was a culmination of the conflict of these ideologies. It remains the deadliest war in history, with around 60 million people perishing during the war. In addition, it was the only truly global war so far, in that there was no nation on earth that remained unaffected by the war, whether or not they were neutral. The end of the war came about with the development of nuclear weapons, the first weapon powerful enough to destroy the earth. While the United States and the Soviet Union did not devolve into direct war with one another, there were several instances where nuclear war was a real possibility, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This time period in history was also brutal enough that it prompted the recognition of genocides. The Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Holodomor, genocides in Russia, Cambodian Genocide, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution all occurred between World War I and the end of the Cold War, and with the exception of the Armenian Genocide, these events were part of the ideological warfare between capitalism and communism. Together, these events alone have caused at least 100 million deaths. While none of these events were unique from any other historical atrocities with similar consequences, they came at a time when genocide awareness existed, and were done on a more massive scale than any time period before it. In addition, none of these examples except Armenia and the Holocaust took place during a war. The Holodomor and genocides in Russia occurred under Stalin in the 1930s. The Khmer Rouge were enabled by their victory in a war to carry out their atrocities in the 1970s, after they had gained power. Many of the victims died from execution, but also dysentery, malnutrition, starvation, or being physically worked to death. Famine during the Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions of Chinese in the 1950s. And social upheaval claimed the lives of millions during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, though no war was declared.

The post-Cold War era itself has already had many humanitarian crises as well. The Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syrian wars are all well documented. Nuclear weapons are also still an issue, as India and Pakistan developed nukes after the Cold War, with the threat of Iran and North Korea gaining capabilities as well. On top of those issues, however, the Yugoslav Wars resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. In Rwanda, the Hutu murdered 800,000 Tutsi over the course of 100 days in 1994. The Second Congo War raged on from the late 1990s and early 2000s, resulting in an estimated 2.5-5.4 million deaths, the largest death toll since World War II. The War in Darfur has killed about 300,000 and displaced several million since 2003.

While diplomacy in the 20th and early 21st centuries has reduced the sheer number of conflicts, a mountain of evidence, past and contemporary, suggests that the world is still very capable of barbaric acts, and that leaders will seek to circumvent either diplomacy or direct war to abuse their people.

Effectiveness of the Dayton Accords

Effectiveness of the Dayton Accords

Since the signing of the Dayton Agreement in 1995, there has not been a significant conflict among the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. This is, in part, thanks to the UN peacekeeping forces in the area. These peacekeepers are merely a guardian of these three ethnic groups and are using the Dayton Agreement to keep the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians in a prolonged timeout. Taking a realist perspective, I believe that the reemergence of conflict between these three ethnic groups is inevitable.

It is a common belief that the Bosnian conflict was caused by ethnic strife between the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians. This may have been an underlying factor. However, I argue that a small dislike of another group was turned into a political tool by the leaders of each state involved. Often times political actors would act more moderate to get voted into office, but once in office, would take a more nationalist approach and preach ethnic superiority. Thus, ethnic strife increased as more extremist-view people were given power.

Now, almost 22 years after the signing of the Dayton Agreement, these preachings have slowly diminished. However, like terrorist ideology, this propaganda and beliefs will never completely disappear. All it takes is another ethnic extremist to take over, and the ethical cleansings that happened during the ‘90s will begin again.  

Drawing upon historic events, Hitler rose to power due to the country’s economic depression, the people’s lack of confidence in the current government, and most importantly, the country’s hatred of the Treaty of Versailles. In regard to the Treaty of Versailles, many German nationalists and veterans believed the war could have been one if they had not been betrayed by protesters and politicians. These animosities during the years after World War I created the perfect environment for Hitler to rise to power.

I would argue that a similar situation could potentially happen in the Balkan region. The Dayton Accords was a United States backed peace talk/agreement. The lone hegemon in the world arguably forced the three leaders to discuss a peace agreement. This most likely created some anger among the three ethnicities because an outside actor was making them go about their conflict in a different way, instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. Also, it took Hitler 14 years after the Treaty of Versailles was signed to become chancellor. Therefore, this rise to power in the former Yugoslavia area will take time to happen.

Even if there wasn’t a major ethnic hatred among the three groups before the Bosnian conflict, there is probably a larger dislike now due to the atrocities committed during the conflict. Like Hitler with his Antisemitism, it is quite possible a new leader will try and succeed in bringing these hatreds out once more. Making this even more possible is the fact that in the past, political actors have acted less radical in order to get elected, and then presenting their more nationalist views once in office.

The Dayton Agreement did not end the conflict between the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, it simply suspended the fighting. Also, this conflict was not the end-all for ethnic tensions in the region, but rather, due to the ethnic cleansings that took place, made them even deeper. All it takes is one leader from any of the three ethnicities to insert nationalist ideals into the heads of his or her people to begin another conflict between the three major ethnic groups.  

North Korea and Foreign Relations

Ally Tompkins

Global Security Studies 

Professor Shirk

                                                   North Korea and Foreign Relations

As the Kim regime has gained control over North Korea, their cult of personality has consumed the ideologies of the populace. In maintaining their unpredictable reputation, each leader (currently Kim Jong-un) has preserved their oppressive rule over the state. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how many of the citizens of North Korea believe the propaganda that the regime provides and how, if the United States were to end the regime, people would react to a world without the Kim family. Thus, the United States is forced to determine the viability of the nation’s threats and nuclear power in order to establish a plan for further actions. The most recent approach known as strategic patience seems the most practical for current foreign relations, as it avoids the consequence from any potentially destructive activity.

The Kim family has become known for their outlandish claims surrounding their personas. From creating a reputation for Kim Jong-il as a fashion icon, to asserting that the rest of the world loves North Korea, the country’s leaders have forged a nation built on lies. In a completely artificial world, it is difficult to tell whether those who live there believe the words of their dictator and to what extent. Therefore, it is difficult to measure how to intervene with the nation’s leadership if after the fall of the regime there is a nation of distraught citizens with a secluded view of the actual world. It is difficult to keep a nation locked in fear and to garner the attention of major world powers, thus there is a danger in dismissing the rationality of a leader such as Kim Jong-un. Anna Fifield of The Washington Post notes that “Leaders throughout the centuries have realized it can be advantageous to have your enemies think you're crazy”, which she argues has been beneficial for the North Korean dictator. While it is evident that the decisions he makes are not good or beneficial for his people, it can easily be argued that they are rational. For example, he has been able to maintain power as he incited fear in the people of his country. A political cartoon by Rick Mckee depicts the North Korean leader as a child, drawing up his plan of attack on the Americans with crayons. Ofttimes Jong-un is dismissed as an immature child because of his anarchic behavior, yet it must be considered that their is a method behind his madness. While his actions may not be seen by members of a democratic state as rational, he has utilized his system of dread and disorder has allowed him to maintain his power to this day.

Therefore, it puts nations such as the United States in a burdensome situation in dealing with the nation. Beginning in 2003, the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea began engaging in meetings known as “Six Party Talks”(Lecture 10). While the framework for the talks still exist, there has not been a talk since 2009. Due to North Korea’s strong intent to build nuclear weapons, the ability to reason with the nation has lessened. If the talks were to change to those with five parties, it could lead to anger from North Korea. Therefore, engaging in such a system would not be beneficial for those involved, as it would only lead to irritation from the excluded party. Taking any drastic actions towards North Korea would risk great casualties amongst both the infiltrators and North Korea itself. Currently, the United states and other nations are preoccupied with North Korea’s intent on building up their nuclear weapons program. However, the human security issue in the country serves as a great problem as well. Yet, with the current regime in power, there are few options to take action against the human rights violations of the nation. Due to all of the risks associated with a definitive action, for now it seems that the best option is to wait. Few options at this point seem viable. In order to take down the regime, there must be a strategic element associated with timing. Similarly, the United States does not want to be responsible for beginning a war that could potentially be nuclear. Therefore, it is important that the United States take a step back to evaluate their options in order to take action when the timing is right. Ally Tompkins

Global Security Studies 

Professor Shirk

As the Kim regime has gained control over North Korea, their cult of personality has consumed the ideologies of the populace. In maintaining their unpredictable reputation, each leader (currently Kim Jong-un) has preserved their oppressive rule over the state. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how many of the citizens of North Korea believe the propaganda that the regime provides and how, if the United States were to end the regime, people would react to a world without the Kim family. Thus, the United States is forced to determine the viability of the nation’s threats and nuclear power in order to establish a plan for further actions. The most recent approach known as strategic patience seems the most practical for current foreign relations, as it avoids the consequence from any potentially destructive activity.

The Kim family has become known for their outlandish claims surrounding their personas. From creating a reputation for Kim Jong-il as a fashion icon, to asserting that the rest of the world loves North Korea, the country’s leaders have forged a nation built on lies. In a completely artificial world, it is difficult to tell whether those who live there believe the words of their dictator and to what extent. Therefore, it is difficult to measure how to intervene with the nation’s leadership if after the fall of the regime there is a nation of distraught citizens with a secluded view of the actual world. It is difficult to keep a nation locked in fear and to garner the attention of major world powers, thus there is a danger in dismissing the rationality of a leader such as Kim Jong-un. Anna Fifield of The Washington Post notes that “Leaders throughout the centuries have realized it can be advantageous to have your enemies think you're crazy”, which she argues has been beneficial for the North Korean dictator. While it is evident that the decisions he makes are not good or beneficial for his people, it can easily be argued that they are rational. For example, he has been able to maintain power as he incited fear in the people of his country. A political cartoon by Rick Mckee depicts the North Korean leader as a child, drawing up his plan of attack on the Americans with crayons. Ofttimes Jong-un is dismissed as an immature child because of his anarchic behavior, yet it must be considered that their is a method behind his madness. While his actions may not be seen by members of a democratic state as rational, he has utilized his system of dread and disorder has allowed him to maintain his power to this day.

Therefore, it puts nations such as the United States in a burdensome situation in dealing with the nation. Beginning in 2003, the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and North Korea began engaging in meetings known as “Six Party Talks”(Lecture 10). While the framework for the talks still exist, there has not been a talk since 2009. Due to North Korea’s strong intent to build nuclear weapons, the ability to reason with the nation has lessened. If the talks were to change to those with five parties, it could lead to anger from North Korea. Therefore, engaging in such a system would not be beneficial for those involved, as it would only lead to irritation from the excluded party. Taking any drastic actions towards North Korea would risk great casualties amongst both the infiltrators and North Korea itself. Currently, the United states and other nations are preoccupied with North Korea’s intent on building up their nuclear weapons program. However, the human security issue in the country serves as a great problem as well. Yet, with the current regime in power, there are few options to take action against the human rights violations of the nation. Due to all of the risks associated with a definitive action, for now it seems that the best option is to wait. Few options at this point seem viable. In order to take down the regime, there must be a strategic element associated with timing. Similarly, the United States does not want to be responsible for beginning a war that could potentially be nuclear. Therefore, it is important that the United States take a step back to evaluate their options in order to take action when the timing is right. 

Work Cited:

1.blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/files/2013/04/kim-cartoon-mckee.jpg.

2. Fifielder, Anna. “A Danger Lies in Underestimating North Korea.” Chicagotribune.com, www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-kim-jong-un-north-korea-20170325-story.html.

3.“How to Stop Kim Jong Un.” Time, time.com/north-korea-opinion/.

`

The War on Terror

George W. Bush, a Baseball, and a Bullhorn

The attacks on September 11, 2001 spearheaded an identity crisis among the American people.  They were scared for and unsure of the future.  They were spiraling into wartime, they felt as if their everyday security was at risk, and they needed a place to turn for reassurance.  Luckily, the American people had the greatest political leader of the 21st century.  They had none other than President George W. Bush.  The man that had the Southern charm, the presidential smile, and an unmatched wit.  He was just your Uncle George and every time he spoke or addressed the nation, you felt that connection.  Now, what better was there to help mend an open ontological wound than someone with those characteristics?  George W. Bush’s response to the attacks on 9/11, barring opinions on the invasion of Iraq, makes him one of the greatest to ever hold the office.  It’s clear that President Bush’s record was quite shaky, considering the economic recession and other failed policy initiatives, but this is far beyond that.  When Gallup, Pew, Quinnipiac, and Monmouth call your house asking whether you view the President as favorable or unfavorable, you likely think of their personality first and foremost.

The beginning of the War on Terror, following the attacks, was not an easy thing to swallow for most Americans.  We saw enlistment rates in the military raise, but the thought of spending more time in war was not a very welcomed idea.  However, a response was absolutely necessary.  Yet, at the same time, President Bush and his calming, reassuring tone seemed to make everything alright.  There are two instances, in particular, that exemplify such a claim.

First, three days following the attacks, President Bush stood atop the rubble at Ground Zero with a bullhorn in his right hand and his left grabbing the shoulder of a mourning, ailing FDNY officer.  At this moment, he solidified himself as the most composed man in the face of the most unbearable and unbelievable adversity.  It was then that “Uncle George” spoke, off the cuff, to the most vulnerable in America.  And he did it as well as anyone had in history.  This, more or less, put to bed, any presidential one-liner that ever was.  This includes “fear itself,” “tear down this wall,” “ask not what your country can do,” and, every last “we’re gonna build a wall” that was to come in decades thereafter.  When President Bush said, “I can hear you.  The rest of the world hears you.  And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,” he bolstered and rejuvenated confidence that was at an all time low.

Second, about a month after September 11th, the President was asked to throw out the first pitch at the World Series.  He was asked to do so in Arizona, at the Diamondbacks’ home field, to lessen the possibility of any further threats or attacks.  However, he refused, and insisted that he throw out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium for Game 3, due to the Stadium’s location in New York City.  He knew that the people of New York needed this more than anything, and that baseball was the one thing that was going to truly unify them.  Well, President Bush took the mound and delivered a perfect strike.  That perfect strike was the most defining symbol of his leadership following 9/11.  His response, his addresses to the nation, his composure and resolve, and even his most informal of interactions were absolutely unprecedented in their class and grace.  Therefore, when I think of the War on Terror and it’s dawn, none other than President George W. Bush, a baseball, and a bullhorn come to mind.

Who Comes First, and What Comes Next?

Adam Steber

September 30, 2017

Prof. Mark Shirk

POL 331-A

Who Comes First, and What Comes Next?

The question of "what comes next" is a question that drives history forward. Making the right decision at these critical junctures can earn leaders an eternal, honored spot in history. Make the wrong choice, however, and the consequences can sometimes be steep enough to collapse an empire.

The Americans and their allies failed to consider the "what comes next" question time and time again in the Middle East, leading to catastrophic results in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. Syria may prove to be another such case if the Americans oust Assad without thinking twice about "what comes next." Therefore, before deciding what to do in Syria, America should first question the motives of their current "allies."

America has tried to balance several Middle Eastern interests at a time, but due to the sheer number of interests they have with conflicting parties, they have stretched themselves out too thin. They cannot continue to arm the independence-seeking Kurds while expecting Turkey to harbor American nukes. They cannot be supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia politically while giving nuclear power to Iran. They cannot weaken Assad's rule on his own country without risking the swell of ISIS or al-Nusra controlled territory. And likewise, they cannot curb Russia's territorial ambitions diplomatically while bombing its Middle Eastern allies. In trying to balance all of these interests, the U.S. finds itself in a cat's cradle game where every possible decision ends in catastrophe--unless they switch up their strategy.

What is America to do, then, when there is seemingly no way out? The answer is to switch jerseys and defend Assad. Yes, America should aid the "bad guy," especially when Syrians themselves appear to support him. An Orthodox Christian in Syria gave his views on Assad in a 2011 al-Jazeera interview, when the Syrian Civil War was just beginning. According to article, the man said that he "did not support Assad's oppressive security apparatus, but under his rule he and his family were able to freely attend church mass each Sunday and celebrate Christian holidays like Christmas each year. He followed up by saying that he had no assurance that any other sect in Syria would protect the Syrian-Christian community" (Rafizadeh). Based on the man's testimony, it appears that in a post-Assad state, there are no guarantees to religious or ethnic minorities in Syria that they will be protected, and that freedoms such as freedom of religion may be eroded under a new leader. If the Americans act to stop Assad too quickly, they may do so while overriding the will of the Syrian people to determine their destiny--the argument The United States gives for fighting Assad.

Moreover, America's own allies are not so much allies as they are "enemies of my enemy." Turkey's loyalty to the West is shaky at best, given their takeover of Cyprus, their continued lobbying to enter the European Union, the refugee crisis, and most recently, the failed coup. The Kurds, meanwhile, are Marxist guerrillas who have provoked conflict in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey in their independence struggle. 70 years later, Israel continues to fight Palestine despite numerous attempts at a solution. Saudi Arabia continues to violate human rights with impunity, having only recently lifted the ban on women drivers. What company is there to keep with any of these powers?

Oil, meanwhile, continues to be the defining factor in the Syria conflict. Given the pipeline map below, the geopolitical web seems to make more sense. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia, Shia and Sunni regional rivals, are proposing the construction of an oil pipeline flowing through friendly countries and into the West, which would provide a crucial economic boon. The pipelines intersect in Syria, where the two countries struggle over Sunni vs. Shia power to install a leader who will approve their pipeline. Thus, the true interest for Saudi Arabia and Iran in the country is oil. The importance of this is that in either event, a country with a poor human rights record will gain access to oil that will prop up their state. Therefore, The U.S. can only minimize the threat of Iran or Saudi Arabia. In the larger context, supporting Assad (and therefore Iran's pipeline) will minimize the damage more than supporting the Saudi-backed rebels. After all, Iran has fewer regional allies if Russia were taken out of the equation, and as a Shia country, it is opposed to ISIS and al-Nusra. The only other Shia powers than Iran are Assad and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia, with its more powerful allies, may prove to be a greater threat in the region.

America's failure to support Assad is an international security threat. If Assad is overthrown by U.S. backed forces, the legitimacy of a foreign leader with popular backing will come into jeopardy, either because the U.S. violated the rule of law to install their own leader, or because ISIS will fill the ensuing power vacuum. In turn, America's reputation of a democratically advanced country respecting the rule of law will come into question, which will open a Pandora's box for other global powers (such as Russia or China) to follow suit. They have much to lose by backing the rebels, with little to gain except the temporary feel good notions of "supporting allies" while "spreading democracy" for a brief period of time before the other actors capitalize on the new situation. On the other hand, supporting Assad, distasteful as the idea may seem to the West, may be the best course of action for now.

Bibliography

1. Austin, Steve. “Oil Prices and the Syrian Civil War.” OilPricenet RSS, OIL-PRICE.NET, 14 Oct. 2015, 
www.oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-prices-and-syrian-civil-war.php.

2. “Map of Syrian Civil War/ Global Conflict in Syria.” Liveuamap, Liveuamap.com, 1 Oct. 2017, syria.liveuamap.com/en/time/15.03.

3. Rafizadeh, Majid. “For Syria's Minorities, Assad Is Security.” Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Media Network, 16 Sept. 2011, www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011912135213927196.html.

Oil pipeline map (Austin):

Helping or Hurting? : To What Extent Should the West Continue to Involve Itself in Middle Eastern Affairs?

The problems in the Middle East were not started by the west and doubtfully will ever be finished by them. Tensions dating back millennia to the Sunni- Shi’a split, have influenced the societies and territories of the Middle East to create when combined with external interests in Middle Eastern commodities such as oil, an extremely turbulent environment. However, despite not starting the problems, within the last couple decades the U.S. -along with many other western powers- has increasingly begun interfering with varying success and failure, with issues they felt posed threats to their allies, themselves or much of the world in general.  Thus, two questions arise: to what extent has the U.S./ western powers helped or hindered tense situations in the Middle East, and to what extent should it continue to involve itself in Middle Eastern problems? Neither question necessarily has a very straightforward answer. The U.S. and other western powers have interfered both positively and detrimentally on a relatively large scale, and are thus responsible at the minimum for defending themselves and aiding those whose home may become a stronghold for terrorism. Ideally the west would also be able to aid any other innocents suffering because of these tensions, however, as that often tends to lead to escalating tensions and further harm to innocents, perhaps the west should begin to shift to simply monitoring the rest of situation from afar as much as possible, intervening only when to help correct what it aided in damaging, and in other extremely necessary situations and doing so wisely, after calculating all possible risks and effects of their actions.

Many are aware of the extensive history of western interference in the Middle East, beginning with many European nations and their histories of colonialism, which often helped to create weakened/ failed states upon the removal of colonialism. Many of these states would later struggle with the rise of inter- (often over divisions in groups and the preference of certain groups by colonists, leading to anger and revolts after colonial exit: a problem also seen as far south as Rwanda during its civil war in the 1990's) and intra- state conflict as well as a rise in terrorism.

 Many also like to conceive of U.S. involvement in the Middle East as primarily beginning with President George H.W. Bush and his announcement of the ‘War on Terror’, with perhaps some inkling of involvement from the Carter and Reagan presidencies. In many ways this is a fair assessment, seeing as most of the tensions between the U.S. and the Middle East seem to have escalated to requiring military action during these eras. After all, it was Bush’s presidency that led to ‘Operation Restore Hope’ in Somalia, which failed to stop Mohamed Farah Aidid, and instead ended with several American soldiers and 1,000+ Somali's dead, in part due to Osama Bin Laden’s planning (a key figure in the escalation of terrorism, the creation of the ‘War on Terror’ and the birth of terrorist groups like ISIS), which solidified a more negative perception of the U.S. to Somalians. It was not the U.S.’s fault for Somalia becoming a failed state but interference that failed in Somalia to aid them may have helped to begin Somali piracy, through a possible general grouping of the U.S. with other western states who had exploited Somalia, leading to their struggles, and in many Somali mind’s ‘justifying’ their actions (before potential greed arose and continued the practice of piracy).

Other interference in Middle Eastern government structures from the west, further drew lines in the sand, with the U.S. -often an almost overactive participant in these interferences-  increasingly being placed on the side of enemy and target.  Decades before more modern, borderline overactive involvement, several presidents in the U.S. began -primarily through interference regarding Iran and Israel – meddling in the Middle East. At some point, this meddling began to become just a bit too much to further create positive results, such as the end of wars, and instead began to breed resentment towards the U.S., now grouped with either the rest of the west and their colonialist histories, or with groups in the Middle East who already had great tensions with other Middle Eastern groups (e.g. Sunni’s vs Shi’a's, Kurds, Israel vs Palestine, etc.). In many ways, this interference, the unseating of certain leaders and clear alignment with specific sides, helped to temporarily alleviate some problems, while creating others. Out of broken governments rose many terror groups who, without as many barriers to it, gained power more easily than they could have before, and who held a larger grudge against the U.S./ the west than ever before.

Overall, choices like the ‘War on Terror’ may have managed to create some good resolutions to some issues, but it also left many negative repercussions and helped to further paint dangerous targets on the U.S. Other western intervention, to some extent, helped repair some of the issues, but when paired with colonialist history, ultimately may have worsened others as well. At this point, the U.S. and much of the west needs to do its best to fix its mistakes, and if possible provide as much humanitarian aid/ security for innocents in the Middle East and abroad as possible. Unfortunately, however, the U.S. and the rest of the west also need to try and take as much of a step back as possible from overactive participation (especially in the case of the U.S.) to primarily monitoring for imminent, un-ignorable threats and acting then.

(Nick Danforth/Bipartisan Policy Center)
Map illustrating Middle Eastern states with a history of colonialism and major colonialization revolts. Many of the states with the strongest colonial control, had the strongest revolts against it, and have higher histories of terrorism, wars and violence.

Military Presence Post-ISIS

The United States military will never be able to pull out of the Middle East. This state has become too integrated in this region that leaving the area may cause everything gained within the last 15 plus years to collapse. Even when the end of ISIS comes, the extremist views will still exist and these extremist ideologies will always be a threat to the Western ways of life. Therefore, the War on Terror will be a never-ending battle against radical ideologies.

President George W. Bush started the infamous War on Terror when he stated, “[W]e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism…” (Jones).  Little did Bush know, this so-called war would be a seemingly endless fight to implement democracy in places where the citizens have little interest in it. The majority of the Middle East see the Quran as the way things ought to be. The teachings in Quran clash with the ideas of democracy in major ways, such as separation of Church and State. Also, a lot of the radical ideologies develop from teachings in the Quran. Consequently, there is no way to stop these interpretations from being put forth unless the Quran gets destroyed. This however, is impractical and will problem cause even more of an uproar.

Similarly, these interpretations/ideologies will not be destroyed once a certain group or even state is demolished. ISIS may be on the decline but this does not mean their beliefs are dying with them. These extremist ideologies are now deeply imbedded into the minds of civilians, and will continue to influence their actions. Furthermore, it is quite possible that an ex-affiliate of ISIS will go off and create his own ideological terrorist group that could be even more threatening to the United States and its allies.  

Therefore, to prevent these extremists from regrouping and terrorizing western ideals, the United States will have to stay in these areas to act as an unofficial police force to ensure no insurgencies try to form and attack westernized countries. This does mean military presence is needed. There are roughly 30,000 United States military personnel spread across the Middle East at the moment (2017 Index of U.S. Military Strength). These troops’ main focus should be on identifying extremist bunkers and eliminating them. Simply bombing these areas does not ensure that the targets will be killed. Sending in soldiers will ensure that the target is identified and killed.

This does raise the risk of more military deaths, but it is a risk that needs to be taken. Leaving the Middle East after the defeat of ISIS will be an open invitation for any other group that wishes to take over. There cannot be a repeat of what happened when the United States pulled out of Iraq. United States’ troops left Iraq before it was ready to fend for itself, allowing ISIS to gain power and land in a decent chunk of the country (Mansour). This created a more global problem for the United States compared to the more localized problem that American troops were dealing with in Iraq at the time.   

There will never be peace and unity in the Middle East. There are way too many ideologies and beliefs that clash with one another. To ensure none of these groups with extremist views attack or threaten other ways of life, the United States needs to be there and act as a sort of peacekeeper. This won’t fix every single problem but it will increase the likelihood of keeping the ideologies contained.