Theory behind the conflict
Assad's psychology and why western countries are involved in the civil war
When you take a closer look at the Syrian Civil War, you do not really notice a realistic or liberalistic motive. The conflict is caused because some groups do not agree with the government, and so want to get rid of this government. Other countries intervene, because they have diplomatic relations with the Ba’ath government, or for example with a country that supports the Free Syrian Army. However, supporting the Ba’ath government, because it is supported by a country you are a trading partner with, or the other way around with the opposition, shows some liberalism. Because a state wants to maintain its trade relations with a certain country, it supports the same group as its trade partner(s) support. They mostly support these groups with non-lethal resources, this also shows liberalism. As you might have seen in the friendship chart in the ‘Key Actors’ paragraph, Saudi Arabia is a supporter of the Free Syrian Army. Some western countries in Europe have a trade relation with Saudi Arabia. To maintain this trade relation, they will probably reject the Ba´ath government to keep a good relation. This is a kind of silent majority as countries do not really dare to make their own choices and decisions.
When you look at the two main actors in the civil war, which are the Ba’ath government and the Free Syrian Army, you notice that the Free Syrian Army fights for a different and thus better government. But Assad fights because he wants to maintain his government, and keep his power. This shows Assad is realistic, but why is he thinking in a realistic way? When Assad was young, he had 2 brothers. His older brother, Bassel, was going to be the next president. He never saw his father, and he claims he had been bullied by Bassel in his childhood. He always had to solve his problems on his own, and withstand the bullying on his own. When you are bullied you can try to talk with the bully so he stops bullying, but this will not always work. Instead Assad probably fought to stop the bullying. When we look at the conflict in Syria, you can see the Free Syrian Army is a threat to Assad, just like his brother was, and he fights the Free Syrian Army rather than talking with it, just like he could not really talk to his brother about the bullying. His childhood might have caused him to react to the Free Syrian Army as he does. This is further explained in the cause-effect diagram.
When you look at the two main actors in the civil war, which are the Ba’ath government and the Free Syrian Army, you notice that the Free Syrian Army fights for a different and thus better government. But Assad fights because he wants to maintain his government, and keep his power. This shows Assad is realistic, but why is he thinking in a realistic way? When Assad was young, he had 2 brothers. His older brother, Bassel, was going to be the next president. He never saw his father, and he claims he had been bullied by Bassel in his childhood. He always had to solve his problems on his own, and withstand the bullying on his own. When you are bullied you can try to talk with the bully so he stops bullying, but this will not always work. Instead Assad probably fought to stop the bullying. When we look at the conflict in Syria, you can see the Free Syrian Army is a threat to Assad, just like his brother was, and he fights the Free Syrian Army rather than talking with it, just like he could not really talk to his brother about the bullying. His childhood might have caused him to react to the Free Syrian Army as he does. This is further explained in the cause-effect diagram.
What might the United States’ role be in the Syrian Civil War when explained by realism or liberalism?
If you look at the conflict from a realistic point of view, the United States interfere to get more power in the Middle-East, and more power means more peace. If you look at it from a liberalistic point of view, the United States would interfere because of humanitarian reasons, and they wouldn’t use force to maintain peace. Instead, they would use International Organisations, like NATO and the UN to achieve peace in a diplomatic way. The US hasn’t interfered in the Syrian Civil War yet, as they only give support to the opposition, and they try to solve it in a diplomatic way. So this means the US tries to solve it in a liberalistic way, however there are realistic motives for interfering in Syria. In August 2014, Hillary Clinton said that the decision of the United States not to intervene earlier on was a failure. This shows Hillary Clinton is thinkig in a realistic way, however, she is not the president of the USA so this will not result in anything
