Wars As Significant Hindrances To The Economic Development

Wars are significant hindrances to the economic development of any nation hence it should be discouraged in the strongest terms possible. Countries that are insecure tend to scare away investors thus reducing the economic growth and prosperity of its citizens. Syria, for instance, has suffered due to wars that have led to thousands of people losing their lives and many displaced from their homes. The United States has employed several policies in-order to help reduce the spread of conflicts.

Syria is an Islamic State that has posed great dangers to its locals and the neighbouring nations at large. Many of the locals have been forced to fly outside the country due to the fear of wars that may typically erupt. The efforts that have been made by the opposition to combat these wars have been fruitless due to the lack of unity among the parties involved. The United States has also emphasize on the need to help reduce the killings and deaths that result from these terror attacks. However, less has been achieved due to the disunity among the opposition. Obama administration offered training of the opposition soldiers, but some rebelled after training thus making the fight against this terrorism almost impossible.

According to Mr John Brennan, the director of criminal investigation authority, more caution ought to be taken in dealing with the group which is not only a threat to Syria but also imposes a great to danger to other nations globally. Among the nations that have suffered as a result of terrorism posed by Syria include; Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Lebanon thus interfering with their economic stability. The number of those who have lost their lives as a result of war is estimated to be 250,000, and several people were forced to move to the neighbouring nations for their safety. Obama government employed several approaches to protect the politics and interest of the United States, for instance, offering training of the opposition army.

Most of the Middle East nation are great producers of oil. Therefore, the United States would want to protect their interest by ensuring that the conflict does not spread to these nations. The United States has opted for six wrong ways to end the stalemate. However, these options may not achieve the intentions since it can only cause more harm than good. These options entail; massive military intervention; working with allies to fight the Syrian government; containing violence; supporting the Syrian rebels to challenge the government and direct military attack on the Islamic state. “Let it burn!”

The United States may decide to avoid peaceful mediation and instead directly attack Syria. Another measure is also stopping the training that is offered to the opposition soldiers. However, these ideologies may be challenging to articulate due to the political difference between the republicans and democrats. The approach has worked well in Iraq and Libya where there was poor governance. However, it proved to be very expensive regarding cost. The intervention may not help much since there are higher probabilities of conflicts spreading to the neighbouring nations. Economic growth will be significantly affected by the wars thus making Syria to be left behind regarding development. The policy having been deployed in Iraq and Libya did not outrighly succeed. The countries are slowly recovering economically after the wars.

Massive intervention

The United States may also decide to collaborate with other militaries to help fight the Islamic States. Through joint forces, it is straightforward to defeat the enemy since all the efforts are geared towards one objective that is one common enemy. Even though the Syria forces may look more massive, it is possible to defeat it if joint efforts are put together. The use of massive military intervention will be dangerous since many people will lose their lives and the economy of Syria will deteriorate significantly.

However, a successful response will be accompanied by several benefits; for instance, the terror group can easily be destroyed. In cases where successful intervention is realized the United States was to facilitate the creation of the transition government so has helped to in the effective governing of Syria.

Working with Allies to fight Islamic State

A good initiative that has been deployed by the Obama administration is working with allies that are opposed to the Islamic State to protect the interest of its citizens. Most of the materialistic and financial support has been offered by the government to help these allies work efficiently. The United States has tried to work with the local forces such as Kurdish in-order help these forces defeat international terrorism state. These local forces were well versed with the operations of the Islamic terrorist state hence they could employ better tactics in dealing with the criminals when given enough support. However, the policy is not will not help much since each ally has a different interest.“Work with the devil we know.”

Another strategy that was proposed by diplomat Ryan Crocker who suggested that working with Assad was of great help to the United States, for instance, it very easy to know the weakness of opponent by being closer him. Obama’s government opted to work well with Assad as opposed to Islamic terrorist group who had dangerous nuclear weapons. However, working with Assad may not offer a permanent solution to the conflict.

No-fly zones, safe zones and Safe Havens

One of the primary intervention is the humanitarian creation space for Syrians which would help to keep the refugees safely in their camp. Creation of these zones would facilitate easy control of Islamic terrorism. The option is quite expensive owing to the high cost involved hence colossal amounts of financial investment is required to make it a success.

Containing the violence

The United States has embarked on this strategy has a way of weakening the opponent. In cases where some wars will be witnessed in the state, the United States government would rather catalyst the war other than stopping it. Containing the violence is one of the most suitable ways of dealing with nations that pose a threat to others globally. Containment is one of the best approaches to ensuring the wars do not spread. In conclusion, better options ought to be put in place other than the lousy choice which may not help reduce stalemate. Most of these bad options had earlier been deployed in countries like Iraq and Libya but never yielded good fruits.