Since mid-August, media outlets have covered the flow of migrants surging into Europe from battle-torn Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Dubbed the “European Migrant Crisis,” it not only has its own Wikipedia page, but it will soon have a direct impact on the United States. President Barack Obama recently unveiled a plan to increase the number of refugees resettled in the U.S. from 70,000 to 100,000 by the year 2017. Though not a large enough increase to truly mitigate the crisis, hubs for refugee resettlement like Seattle, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Salt Lake City will undoubtedly feel the cultural impact as thousands of families make their exodus here.
We mustn’t take this crisis lightly. With its impact on locations all over the world and especially on the lives of millions of ousted, beleaguered people, we can trace this crisis to a few root causes. One, which has developed significantly in the past several weeks, is the Syrian Civil War.
In September, Russia began positioning ground forces at an airfield in Syria. This, coupled with Russia’s support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during the four year Civil War, was a concern for U.S. officials and their allies. For the duration of the Syrian conflict, in which opposition groups have attempted to defeat al-Assad’s regime, the United States have implicitly and explicitly (by armament and CIA training) supported the opposition. A host of human-rights violations, including the use of chemical warfare, have prompted many countries to openly oppose the Syrian leader. On the other hand, Russia has, for several years, backed the Syrian government, fearing that ousting Assad would create a power vacuum which could be filled by the Islamic State. Nobody wants this.
At a United Nations conference on Monday, Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin exchanged proposals for how to best handle the Syrian conflict. Obama maintained that we continue to oppose al-Assad, whose efforts to remain in power have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the region. Putin suggested that we instead utilize the help of and support al-Assad to oppose Islamic State forces.
“We think it’s an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces who are valiantly fighting terrorism fact to face,” Putin stated. Indeed, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is as much an opponent to Syria as it is to Russia, the U.S. and the rest of the world. In the end, Putin agreed that Russia should coordinate efforts with the U.S. to fight ISIL and avoid accidental military clashes.
Then, Russia conducted airstrikes that appeared to target not Islamic State militants, but U.S.-backed opposition groups. Though Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed his country was aiming to disrupt ISIL, many others, most notably Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), say that Russia is not to be trusted. Their obvious ties to Assad only contradict what the U.S. is trying to do — quell human rights abuses and avoid even more unnecessary deaths.
Yet, what is there to do? If the U.S. wants to oust Assad without allowing ISIL to control Syria under its Caliphate, political stability is a pre- and post-requisite. Ironically enough, al-Assad is the only real source of stability in the region. It would be inimical, certainly right now, for al-Assad’s regime to be defeated — though we mustn’t forget the untold horrors al-Assad’s regime is unfolding on the people of Syria every day.
Instead of working for or against Russia, the U.S. must work with them to oppose ISIL forces. Conversely (and perhaps improbably), Russia must concede and work toward a plan that sees the removal of Bashar al-Assad. Alone, the U.S. is facing another Iraq — devoid of sufficient resources and unable to cull political security in a nation ruled by barbaric levels of warfare. With the support of the UN and Russia, however, we might be able to prevent further catastrophe. Indeed, if we can’t find common ground, we’ll have much more than a migration crisis on our hands.