President Barack Obama has asked congressional leaders to give him the power to launch airstrikes in Syria against the radical extremist group known as the Islamic State. He is also seeking approval to provide weapons and training to Syrian rebels on the ground willing to combat IS. IS is among the key rebel groups fighting to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom Obama has long demanded to leave power.  Turning other rebel groups against the Islamic State may turn the Syrian conflict in Assad’s favor. Assad himself has warned against U.S. airstrikes in Syria. Do you agree with Obama’s plan to combat IS in Syria? 

Katy Dowling '15

Neither Assad’s regime nor the Islamic State are desirable options for leadership in Syria. However, it is not possible to oust both and establish a new government. Therefore, we must deal with IS in force and then return to the problem of Assad at a later time. At this time, committing to airstrikes is the most viable option for the United States, as it would allow for maximum efficacy without the loss of American lives. Less civilians will be affected than if we were to have soldiers in the region. Weapons training for established rebel groups and Assad supporters is riskier for the United States, as they will be liable if any of these groups put the civilian population at risk and will be seen as condoning Assad’s horrific actions. Therefore, airstrikes and aid to those displaced and in need are the best action to take at the current time. 

Katy Dowling ’15 is an undergraduate departmental representative for the Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies program.

Connor Wahrman '17

Assad’s warnings against U.S. intervention largely follows from concerns over sovereignty. Obama’s decision signals that the U.S. does not recognize Assad as having legitimate control over the areas in question, a precedent which, with increased international support of the rebels, could not only lead up to, but justify, the end of the regime. On that, I disagree with the idea that turning rebels against IS would help Assad; IS and moderate rebel groups are already in opposition, and arms given to fight IS just as easily be used against Assad. If both Assad and IS could be removed from the equation, the international community would have the opportunity to begin correcting the mistakes of the political order established after World War I. One could question the necessity of force to accomplish this, but the threats of genocide and other human rights abuses posed by IS justify such violence.

Connor Wahrman ’17 is a writer for the Brandeis International Journal.

Mark Gimelstein '17

On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry did whatever he could to identify the U.S. military offensive on the Islamic State as anything but “war.” Whether Kerry believes that the U.S. plan is war or not, the hard truth remains: IS is at war with us. IS has beheaded and crucified its enemies and penalized religious minorities through religious taxes which non-Muslims have often obeyed, only to be killed anyway. The crimes, however, that stand above the rest are the murders of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. It’s clear that if IS isn’t destroyed now, the West could face serious ramifications. Persistent airstrikes must be an option against IS, and in that I agree with President Obama. However, we already know that the Free Syrian Army is infiltrated with terrorism—most notably Al-Nusra—and, therefore, should not receive any military aid from the United States, period. President Obama is better served arming the Kurds, who are proven friends to the U.S. and desperately need military equipment. One thing remains clear—we are at war with IS whether we like it or not. 

Mark Gimelstein ’17 is a Justice Forum staff writer.

Ricky Miller '17

I think airstrikes are a reasonable idea, but arming rebels is not. The question is whether the U.S. should act to weaken IS’s or Assad’s position in Syria. Both parties are abhorrent. It is ethically perplexing to decide which atrocity is worse—Assad gassing his own people, or IS’s ethnic cleansings. However, IS’s swiftness in conquering northern Iraq, and hate of Western culture, means we would likely rather have Assad—so the U.S. should act against IS. Airstrikes are a reasonable method. However, the U.S.’s record of success via arming rebels is worrisome —many terrorist groups in the Middle East have emerged from rebel groups the U.S., initially supported, and the Iraqi troops the U.S. trained fled and abandoned their equipment.

Ricky Miller ’17 is the religious life coordinator for Hillel at Brandeis and a Justice Layout staff member.