US should not pursue Syrian intervention policy

It is generally a bad idea to build a house without a blueprint or write an essay without an outline. Without a guideline, things can often get messy.

This same idea applies to how the United States should approach the conflict in Syria.

There are some who believe that putting boots on the ground in Syria will magically resolve the quagmire that is Syria. The United States, however, has no plan as to what those troops could do to solve the situation.

There is no plan for how troops could more effectively contain ISIS or create a replacement strategy for Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

If anything, interjecting troops into the conflict would only exacerbate issues such as the disagreements between the Kurds and Turkey and the tension between the United States and Russia.

The potential conflict in Syria draws some dangerous parallels to the Vietnam War.

There is no clear way for us to measure progress. One can not achieve their mandate if there is no mandate in place.

We could expect that, much like the Vietnam War, success would not be measured by territory gained, but by body count. This is because without a mandate or plan to measure success, the only way to measure success is by body count.

ISIS is not al-Qaeda. ISIS is far too advanced for our plan to simply be “kill as many members as possible.”

With Russia backing Assad, the Syrian government far more formidable.

There is also a dangerous precedent of United States involvement in the Middle-East. Our involvement in recent years has done little to assist the countries in need.

In fact, it has only damaged the United States’ image and further destabilized the region.

The response to the Syrian conflict is not to barrel in with thousands of troops and no clear mandate.

If we hope to truly achieve stability in the region we must form a coalition force with the surrounding governments that does not involve the use of United States combat troops.