A Call to Intervention is Trickier than it Seems

In Consequences of US Intervention in Syria, a blog post written by Mustafa Hussein the Syrian war crisis is explored and possible outcomes outlined by possible actions that the United States government could take. It is clear at the beginning of the article that the conflict in Syria is not one that could be easily deciphered as black and white; it involves an intricate number of parties and groups. Each group fighting for a differentiating cause and only forming alliances when their similarity pertains to their belonging in the Shia or Sunni faction. 

As stated in the article, the conflict involves groups such as President Bashar al-Assad governmental forces, Hezbollah (representing Shia Muslims) forces, Iranian forces, ISIS, the Islamic Front, Al-Nustra Front and other groups (representing Sunni Muslims). All of these are inside groups that seek to penetrate into the Syrian society and eventually take over the country. 

What the author speaks about in the end, is something that perhaps could have been elaborated more upon. For the role that the United States takes in this present crisis occurring in Syria is of great magnitude. Hussein clearly states that the two options available have down sides, however the United States’ action is vital to the termination of this war and therefore intervention in Syria should be made.

A point he failed to consider is that intervention won’t be easy. If the United States were to favor president’s al-Assad forces and fight off all the rebel forces, it would have to consider a Russian alliance and relation. Not only that, but also keep in mind wether al-Assad’s actions as a leader are actions that the U.S. government would want to partake in. And if the mass center force defeats ISIS and the Sunni-affiliated front, then what guarantees that al-Assad would be able to prevent future disputes from happening. Sponsoring a mass genocide and not proving to lead a country in crisis doesn’t speak much for Bashar al-Assad’s capability of recovering the state of a failing country. If Instead the United States government were to aid the rebel groups that are fighting al-Assad's regime and terrorist groups, it would find itself in a situation at odds with personal interests. It would escalate tensions in the world, since Iran is supporting Syrian government and ultimately create a greater divide between the people of the middle east and people of the western hemisphere.

U.S intervention is vital to the current chaos, however intervention should not be made in a hurried notion. Therefore instead of emphasizing in the groups fighting this civil war, Mustafa should have focused more on the long term effects that each decision would create. Personally speaking the U.S. government would have a better, and neutral stance, if it were to fight along al-Assad's government and Russian forces. That alliance would lessen expectations from the Syrian government to provide all the force and artillery needed, it would guarantee a coalition that would benefit the world in any future conflict and eventually would help diminish radical groups that terrorize the world.

Cultural War - Will the Transgender Transition Ever Occur?

The Current Change

On April 19th, The New York Times and many other media outlets highlighted a current event that changes things for a troubled group in society. The event described in the article pertained to a recent ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which favored a transgender student in Virginia and his right to attend the restroom which corresponded with his personal sexual identity. This new ruling is of great importance because it is the first of its kind to grant a transgender person, the right to choose simply on the basis of identity. It is certainly a sign that times are changing and that changing people are fighting for their right to live as they choose.

An Act of Disapproval: The Boycott

The surge of change has always come with limitations and unexpected challenges, therefore it is with reason that when The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of a transgender student the wheels of dissenting views started rolling. More apparent than before the American public began making statements against the pro-transgender ruling that gave transgender people the right to choose where they please to go to the bathroom in public buildings within the state of Virginia. With the aide of social media people, who did not sympathize with the idea that transgender people should be able to occupy whichever bathroom they choose, began to take action. Perhaps the best example of initiative that the America public showed, is seen through the current boycott that is taking place against Target.

In an effort to embrace the ruling made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Target announced that,  "it would allow men to use women’s restrooms and fitting rooms, and vice versa, if the facilities correspond with the customers’ gender identity." Upon this announcement the American Family Association, which holds many conservative values, began an online pledge to boycott Target and any place that offered the same provisions to transgender people. Within a week, the online pledge earned nearly a million signatures and its numbers keep growing. People who support this boycott, feel at odds with the Appellate Court ruling because 1) they are uncomfortable with the idea that bathrooms will become gender neutral and 2) they are fearful that gender neutral restrooms will only generate an increase in cases of sexual assault. According to dissenting views, society should never transform itself to fit the needs of an outcast group.

The crisis America is facing, is not one that can be describe as a red and blue fight. It is a moral and ethical dilemma that affects society at its core. While some people think Target's actions are to be applauded and followed by other chain stores there are those that certainly condemn the store and view its actions as an insult to their religious or moral values. With the Supreme Court's decision that enabled same-sex marriage in place, and this most recent decision made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals many people are wondering what role the American government should take at this time.

Role of the Government Should Take

The truth of the matter is that the American government functions strictly on the basis of providing order, justice, and opportunity. The founding fathers were wise to separate the church from the state, making sure further generations would understand that in the world of politics there would never be a focus on religious ideals. At the same time however, the legislative process was created to ensure that unless change was necessary the personal needs of a minority group would not harm all of the stable citizenry. 

Regarding the Transgender community and their goal to get legislation to support their stance, the wise choice is clear: politics should not intervene with the matter and government does not need to create laws in favor of transgender people. If change is bound to happen it must first obtain momentum and support from society. When the transgender community has enough support from society and when it comes to affect more than the existing 3% of the American population, then it is the governments role to do something. As of now, actions like those of Target are good forms of making a change and creating the conversation.