As far back as 1953, the United States has been apart of Middle Eastern politics on a periodic basis. Whether in government regime, quarrels over weapons of mass destruction, or missions (possibly) fueled by financial interest in the region, the United States has had their presence known in the region for quite some time. The recent Syria debate is just another notch on the totem pole of U.S. foreign policy.
For a quick overview of the recent developments, Buzzfeed recently published an overview of the conflict explained in GIFS from MTV series The Hills titled ‘’Obama Asks The Hill To Bomb Syria, As Explained By ‘The Hills’.’’ The ongoing Syrian struggle between the regime of current President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian rebels to his regime has had the watchful eye of the U.S. government for nearly three years. On August 21, U.S. intelligence believed Assad had used chemical weapons on his people. The administration quickly lobbied to have military intervention to remove the weapons, but we’re met with sharp public backlash and criticism from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is aligned with Assad through various treaties with Syria. Met with this opposition, Putin has proposed a compromise that Assad will remove the arms if the U.S. calls off attacking Syria.
How can stability be brought to the Middle East? The U.S. needs to get out of the Middle East and return political interest in the region to the people of each individual country. Going off the Roosevelt Corollary shouldn’t give the U.S. government authority to play hall monitor (or maybe schoolyard bully to the rest of the world) to other conflicts halfway across the planet. According to themuslimtimes.org, the U.S. and Israel have bombed 14 Middle Eastern countries in the past, including Syria. Bombs and servicemen cannot bring peace and stability, especially if you have no dog in this fight.