The US bombed the Middle Euphrates Valley, which acts as an informal border between the government-controlled west side, and the east side, controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. The air and artillery strikes killed an estimated 100 pro-government fighters, along with Russian mercenaries in the area, though Russia denies them being there. The Pentagon reported that Russia had given the US the "green light" to launch strikes. The US claims that forces allied with the Syrian government crossed the demarcation line, and launched an "unprovoked attack" on SDF headquarters in Khusham. One US official stated that pro-Syrian forces were "likely seeking to seize oilfields in Khusham." In response to the strikes, the Syrian foreign ministry wrote to the UN, demanding "international condemnation," describing the air strikes as "a war crime and a crime against humanity."
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think that the Syrians are justified in accusing the US of a massacre? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that the US's response to the attacks was reasonable? If not, what would you have done differently?
3. How large is the impact of oil fields in this situation? What is your opinion on their significance?
The Syrians are justified in accusing the US, given that they are able to prove that allied forces did not cross the demarcation line. Also, although there is a war going on, it is still a war crime to mercilessly bomb enemies without justification. As for the oil fields, they have a huge impact on almost every conflict in the Middle East. The US is a huge importer of oil, with a large percentage of it coming from the Middle East. They often create alliances in the hopes of access to oil fields. Regarding this, they are likely to defend desperately if they feel that they are being attacked.
ReplyDeleteLike Victor, I believe that the Syrians are justified in condemning the U.S. air strikes because they seem like a grossly inappropriate response to a border dispute that didn't seem to pose a threat at all, at least as described in the BBC article. In fact, the whole idea of the "unprovoked attack" across the line may be a cover up justification for the U.S. as there are no other sources to confirm or deny it. Under these conditions, I would have retaliated with strikes on rebel buildings because they would be effective without killing people, even if those people are enemies. Another benefit would be not making it a global issue as the UN is now involved.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the above comments that Syrians are justified to accuse the US of a massacre. Even if allies of the Syrian government crossed the demarcation line, the US should not have responded by attacking the Middle Euphrates Valley. The bbc article said our bombing left dozens dead and the pro-government fighters were local people. The US should have negotiated with Assad and made some peace plan instead of getting back at them for an attack. To discuss Syria's motives for their attack and how to resolve this conflict on the border.
ReplyDeleteSyria was justified in accusing the US of massacre. As Victor said, it was unclear whether or not the demarcation line had actually been crossed. With shaky evidence, a bombing was far from a reasonable reaction. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights identified the casualties as locals, pro-Assad. However, as they were locals, they likely were unaffiliated with any larger cause like seizing the oil fields as the US suspected. Of course, the presence of the oil fields calls into question the US' motives. Being the main reason the US has been involved in the middle east at all, the presence of the oil fields in this conflict shows this strike was in self-interest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the above comments as well. Syria was justified in accusing the US of this massacre. If I was the US, I would have responded differently, even if Syria crossed the demarcation line. The US should have simply negotiated with the Syrian President, Assad, instead of injuring and killing dozens, as Janet said. The US should have made a peace treaty/agreement with Syria in order for this to be prevented. The peace agreement would have sorted a lot more things out, but now the US is simply involved in this conflict in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-government fighters did possess "artillery, tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems and mortars," but the threat that they posed wasn't serious enough for the US to justify their decision to launch air strikes. Many unnecessary casualties could have been avoided if the US asked Assad to withdraw the pro-government fighters from the US side of the demarcation line.
ReplyDeleteSyrians are justified in accusing the US of a massacre, since the US was responsible for launching an attack on the Middle Euphrates Valley, killing around 100 people. The US is definitely to blame, especially since the reason that Syria crossed this informal border is unknown, and the fact that the border is considered "informal". Instead of retaliating with another attack, I would have at least made an attempt to reason with Syria.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. shouldn't have much say in Syria because the fight isn't for them. If the goal of the U.S. is to help the people of Syria then a focus on safety and refugees should be in place, not airstrikes. The U.S. is knowledgeable enough to know where they are targeting and what they will be destroying. The fact that it was a coordinated attack with Russia shows how the act was meant to send a message to the Syrian government about what other nations are willing to do to interfere in their war.
ReplyDelete