北美作业代写-美国和联合国对叙利亚冲突的干预，本文是一篇留学北美的作业写作范文，主要内容是关于美国和联合国是否应该干预叙利亚冲突，以及这种干预应该是军事干预还是战略干预，全球的争议越来越大。美国因其不干预政策而受到批评，特别是随着暴力程度的上升和冲突蔓延到该国其他地区，甚至其与土耳其和伊拉克的边界。现在是停止这种“停火”干预的时候了。叙利亚境内的杀戮、爆炸和破坏尚未停止，除非采取措施迫使其结束，否则很可能不会停止。作业提出这场冲突已从一场内部斗争演变为迫在眉睫的第二场国际利益冷战，再次加剧了美国和俄罗斯之间的紧张关系。如果这场冲突不停止，它将带来波及世界各地的危险和经济问题的多米诺骨牌效应。增加对叙利亚叛军的军事援助符合美国的最大利益，以避免巨大的财政影响和不经我们干预可能导致的日益增长的恐怖势力的前景。下面就一起看一下这篇北美留学生作业范文。
There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States and UN should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has been criticized for its non-intervention policy, especially with the rise in the level of violence and the spread of conflict to other areas of the country, and even to its borders with Turkey and Iraq. It is time for this ‘cease fire’ of intervention to stop. The killings, the bombings and destruction within Syria haven’t stopped and likely won’t unless something is done to force its end. This conflict has gone from an internal struggle into an impending second Cold War of international interests, reasserting the tension between the U.S. and Russia. If this conflict is not brought to a halt, it will bring upon a domino effect of danger and economic problems that reach every corner of the world. It is in the United States’ best interest to increase the military aid to Syrian rebels in order to avoid immense financial implications and the prospect of a growing force of terror that could result without our intervention.
Upon reading this statement there is an immediate disapproval from many individuals stating we would be pushing a line between intervention and invasion. So, before supporting this argument, it’s important to note the possible cons to taking a direct militaristic path to Syrian aid.
读到这一声明后，许多人立即表示反对，称我们将在干预和入侵之间划清界限。因此，在支持这一论点之前，重要的是要注意采取直接军国主义途径援助叙利亚可能存在的缺点。
America has always been viewed as the global ‘peace-keepers,’ and because of this we have made many friends and enemies. For the last fifty years, we have jumped into conflict after conflict believing that our nation would emerge as the victors due to prior victories from the Revolutionary War to WWII. To some, this mentality has led to a consistent underestimation of groups like al Qaeda, and the Taliban by politicians and citizens alike here in the United States. For this intervention to work, we must take it step-by-step or else we may find ourselves in way over our heads just like in Vietnam.
美国一直被视为全球“和平卫士”，因此我们结交了许多朋友和敌人。在过去的五十年里，我们陷入了一场又一场的冲突，相信我们的国家会因为从独立战争到二战的胜利而成为胜利者。对一些人来说，这种心态导致了美国政客和公民对基地组织和塔利班等组织的一贯低估。要想让这种干预奏效，我们必须循序渐进，否则我们可能会发现自己像在越南一样不知所措。
Something else that the United States must consider is the duration of this sustained conflict we may enter. Due to the sense of American exceptionalism held in our nation (that we are the greatest and most powerful country in the world), the civilian population may think war will be a quick “in and out” fight: America goes in, kicks ass, people love us, and then we go. In reality, we could be paying for an indirect war that could very well last for another 10 years, and even upon its completion, could cost billions more to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure in Syria.
美国必须考虑的另一件事是我们可能进入的这场持续冲突的持续时间。由于美国的例外主义在我国根深蒂固（我们是世界上最伟大和最强大的国家），平民可能会认为战争将是一场快速的“进进出出”的战斗：美国进去，踢屁股，人们爱我们，然后我们就走了。事实上，我们可能要为一场可能再持续10年的间接战争买单，甚至在战争结束后，重建叙利亚被摧毁的基础设施可能还要花费数十亿美元。
That being said, isolationism or complacency could prove to be absolutely detrimental to the United States and the world. Without continued and increased militaristic involvement from the United States, two aspects of United States and world affairs will become extremely volatile.
尽管如此，孤立主义或自满情绪可能对美国和世界造成绝对不利的影响。如果美国不继续和增加军国主义的参与，美国和世界事务的两个方面将变得极不稳定。
The first of these two pieces involves avoiding the breaking-down of international war norms, and deterrence from further violence in the region. The most obvious benefit of ending the Syrian civil war is the prevention of the escalation of conflict across the Middle East and the deterrence involvement would create towards the use of chemical weapons. The Obama administration’s “don’t cross this line or else you’re in trouble” tactic did nothing to resolve the conflict and caused many countries, most importantly al-Assad’s Syrian regime to question whether we were just all talk. An immediate and unforgiving show of strength, leading to full destruction of Assad’s armies would immediately deter all other “states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S. partners from trying to solve security problems on their own in ways that would end up threatening other states” (Brooks and Wohlforth 2013). While many criticize U.S. outreach into other countries’ “business,” a lack of involvement in Syria could lead to a chain reactions of wars within the Middle East that could completely dismantle all resource and trade agreements the U.S. relies on from that region.
这两件事中的第一件涉及避免打破国际战争规范，并遏制该地区进一步的暴力。结束叙利亚内战最明显的好处是防止整个中东的冲突升级，而介入将对化学武器的使用产生威慑作用。奥巴马政府的“不要越过这条线，否则你就有麻烦了”策略没有解决冲突，并导致许多国家，最重要的是阿萨德的叙利亚政权质疑我们是否只是在谈论。立即、毫不留情地展示实力，导致阿萨德军队的全面摧毁，将立即阻止所有其他“渴望地区霸权的国家考虑扩张，并阻止美国伙伴试图以威胁其他国家的方式自行解决安全问题”。虽然许多人批评美国与其他国家的“商业”接触，但如果不参与叙利亚事务，可能会导致中东地区战争的连锁反应，这可能会彻底摧毁美国所依赖的该地区的所有资源和贸易协定。
Additionally, the United States has a national security interest in ensuring that “when countries break international norms on chemical weapons they are held accountable” (Blanchard and Sharp 2013). Knowing full well that Syria is using chemical weapons on their citizens and enemies and doing nothing to stop it, opens up an entirely new chapter in the worldwide ‘book of war’. In a recent article published by SOFREP, a news network run by Special Ops veterans, the idea of chemical weapon adoption was discussed and the writer stated that, “There is undoubtedly utility in spanking a dictator if he uses chem[ical weapons] against his people. To not do so invites more of it, or worse, the acceptance of chemical weapons as a weapon of war” (SOFREP 2017). If we refuse to use force in showing complete disapproval of chemical weapon use, every other country that feels any desire to use chemical weapons will no longer feel any obligation to avoid using them. Leading to wars becoming even more violent and deadly than they already are. Although the U.S. faces no immediate domestic war, avoidance of keeping this war norm set, could eventually prove to be a very costly decision should any war erupt in our future.
此外，美国在确保“当国家违反化学武器国际规范时，他们要承担责任”方面有国家安全利益。充分了解叙利亚正在对其公民和敌人使用化学武器，并且没有采取任何行动来阻止它，这在全世界的“战争书”中打开了一个全新的篇章。在特种作战老兵运营的新闻网络SOFREP最近发表的一篇文章中，讨论了采用化学武器的想法，作者表示，“如果独裁者对其人民使用化学武器，那么打他屁股无疑是有用的。如果不这样做，会导致更多人接受化学武器作为战争武器”。如果我们拒绝使用武力来表示完全反对使用化学武器，那么其他任何有使用化学武器意愿的国家都将不再有义务避免使用化学武器。导致战争变得更加暴力和致命。尽管美国不会立即面临国内战争，但如果我们未来爆发任何战争，避免维持这一战争规范最终可能是一个代价高昂的决定。
The second most direct reason that it is in U.S interest to intervene in Syria, and highest of direct importance involves what would be the loss of a huge supplier of foreign oil and a huge blow to the U.S. global economy network resulting from the spread of ISIS control throughout the region.
干预叙利亚符合美国利益的第二个最直接的原因，也是最直接的重要原因，涉及到一个巨大的外国石油供应商的损失，以及ISIS控制在整个地区的扩散对美国全球经济网络的巨大打击。
Although there could already be too much damage to domestic Syria to ever rebuild a fully functioning sovereign state, the avoidance of such an effort would lead, almost certainly, to the following two catastrophic outcomes. The full collapse of Iraq and Syria and the long-term enshrinement of the Islamic State (Thanassis Boston Globe).
尽管叙利亚国内可能已经遭受太多破坏，无法重建一个全面运作的主权国家，但避免这样的努力几乎肯定会导致以下两个灾难性后果。伊拉克和叙利亚的全面崩溃以及伊斯兰国家的长期神圣化。
Terrorist networks like al-Qaeda and ISIS rely on discourse and conflict in unstable regions in order to implant their influence and control in that region. The ungoverned territory that would result from a governmental collapse of Syria and Iraq would provide said territory for these terrorist groups to operate. The collapse of the Syrian state and a severely weak Iraqi state have recently created the perfect vacuum for terrorists to fill as we saw in the Vice News movie documenting ISIS influence in the region. According to journalist Antoun Issa, “The consequences have been an expanded reach of terrorism that is frequently hitting Europe, and inspiring lone-wolf attacks in the United States” (Issa et al. 2016). In addition to this up-scaling of area from which to operate terrorist activity from, in an ungoverned state, these terrorist groups would have full control over the states’ oil fields and reserves. According to the Financial Times, these groups already have control over a huge portion of those reserves. “Isis’s main oil producing region is in Syria’s eastern Deir Ezzor province, where production was somewhere between 34,000 to 40,000 barrels a day in October” (Financial Times 2017). It was reported that ISIS currently makes $1.5m a day off of oil smuggling alone, with full access to all of these states’ oil fields, ISIS could control an enormous amount of oil that the world depends on and could control where, when, and to who the oil is sent to.
像基地组织和ISIS这样的恐怖网络依赖于不稳定地区的言论和冲突，以便在该地区建立影响力和控制。叙利亚和伊拉克政府垮台所造成的未受控制的领土将为这些恐怖组织提供上述领土。正如我们在《副新闻》（Vice News）电影中所看到的那样，叙利亚政府的崩溃和伊拉克政府的极度脆弱，为恐怖分子填补了一个完美的真空。这部电影记录了ISIS在该地区的影响。据记者安托恩·伊萨（Antoun Issa）称，“其后果是恐怖主义的影响范围扩大，经常袭击欧洲，并在美国引发独狼袭击”。除此之外，在一个未受控制的国家，这些恐怖组织还将全面控制该国的油田和储量，从这些地区开展恐怖活动。据英国《金融时报》报道，这些集团已经控制了这些储备的很大一部分。“伊希斯的主要产油区位于叙利亚东部的代尔埃佐省，10月份该省的日产油量在34000至40000桶之间”。据报道，仅ISIS目前每天就可以从石油走私中获得150万美元的收入，ISIS可以完全进入所有这些州的油田，控制世界依赖的大量石油，并可以控制石油的去向、时间和对象。
Without a direct intervention from U.S. Military power, the United States economy and oil availability would begin to plummet and the future of our nation’s safety would be put wildly at risk.
如果没有美国军事力量的直接干预，美国经济和石油供应将开始暴跌，我们国家安全的未来将面临巨大风险。
Now that the factor regarding why involvement is necessary has been answered, it is necessary to continue deliberation about why and how militaristic intervention is the best path to take.
既然关于为什么必须参与的因素已经得到回答，就有必要继续考虑为什么以及如何军事干预是最好的途径。
Developing a strategy for attack that encompasses main targets and pressure points while avoiding crossing the line from intervention into invasion by sending a full army is of utmost importance, or else the fabled ‘World War III’ could unravel into less of a fable.
制定一项包括主要目标和压力点的进攻战略，同时避免通过派遣一支全军从干预到入侵，这一点至关重要，否则传说中的“第三次世界大战”可能会演变成一个不那么虚构的故事。
A U.S.-led military campaign would require a select few detailed strategic points to build off of. First, the military would need to put civilian well-being as its highest interest to end the innocent death count which is already reaching the hundreds of thousands. In doing so, the military would promote a core political system where all people share and reserve certain rights that must always be kept. Next, weakening the Syrian government’s military forces would not only slow the damage being done to state itself, but would also begin to reintroduce norms of warfare by ‘curbing’ the al-Assad regime that is currently using chemical weaponry against its citizens. Finally, since completely destroying the al-Assad regime is not the goal, forming a balance between the rebels and newly forming government would be the target of this intervention. This would require the Syrian state to develop its own new governing body while still imposing the threat of military strikes or withholding of military aid to any party that aspires to outright victory rather than negotiated settlement.
以美国为首的军事行动需要选择几个详细的战略点来建立。首先，军方需要将平民福祉作为最高利益，以结束已经达到数十万人的无辜死亡人数。这样做，军方将促进一个核心政治体系，在这个体系中，所有人都分享和保留某些必须始终保持的权利。其次，削弱叙利亚政府的军事力量不仅会减缓对国家本身造成的损害，而且还会通过“遏制”阿萨德政权，重新引入战争规范，该政权目前正在对其公民使用化学武器。最后，由于彻底摧毁阿萨德政权并不是目标，因此在叛乱分子和新组建的政府之间建立平衡将是此次干预的目标。这将要求叙利亚政府建立自己的新管理机构，同时仍对任何渴望取得直接胜利而非谈判解决的政党施加军事打击或拒绝军事援助的威胁。
Building off the ideas that would encompass an effective intervention, it is important to note that many of the “minimalistic” ideas proposed by some critics opposed to full-scale military aid would have little effect on the stability of the region. The problem with these proposed minimalist intervention solutions involving the implementation of “no-fly zones” or “no kill” zones is that, in Syrian conditions, according to researcher Gareth Evans, “full-scale warfare would almost certainly have been required to impose them: the minimum may entail something like the maximum” (Evans 2014). Basically meaning that by enforcing a measure used to prevent a war from breaking out, often ignites that war into fruition. Recently, Trump ordered the firing of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles at Syrian regime infrastructure. And although Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu described this decision to retaliate as welcome, it was still not nearly enough. In an interview with The Washington Post, the prime minister stated, “If this intervention is limited only to an air base, if it does not continue and if we don’t remove the regime from heading Syria, then this would remain a cosmetic intervention” (Loveluck and Zakaria 2017). Slight and sporadic military strikes would be the same as doing absolutely nothing and would have no true effect on the outcome of the conflict.
在包含有效干预的想法的基础上，值得注意的是，一些反对全面军事援助的批评者提出的许多“极简主义”想法对该地区的稳定几乎没有影响。根据研究人员加雷思·埃文斯（Gareth Evans）的说法，这些拟议的涉及实施“禁飞区”或“禁杀区”的最低限度干预解决方案的问题在于，在叙利亚的情况下，“几乎可以肯定地说，实施这些方案需要全面战争：最低限度可能会导致类似最高限度的情况”。基本上就是说，通过实施一项措施来防止战争爆发，往往会点燃战争的序幕。最近，特朗普下令向叙利亚政权基础设施发射59枚战斧巡航导弹。尽管土耳其外交部长Mevlut Cavusoglu表示这一报复决定是受欢迎的，但这还远远不够。在接受《华盛顿邮报》采访时，总理表示，“如果这种干预仅限于一个空军基地，如果不继续，如果我们不解除叙利亚政权的领导，那么这将仍然是一种表面干预”。轻微和零星的军事打击与什么都不做一样，不会对冲突的结果产生真正的影响。
For the U.S. to have an effective militaristic intervention that meets all the goals listed above, without it turning into an invasion in the eyes of the world, three strategies need to be continued and amplified.
为了使美国能够进行有效的军国主义干预，实现上述所有目标，同时又不会在全世界眼中变成侵略，需要继续并扩大三种战略。
First, the U.S. needs to continue its deployment of mobile bases of operation, in this instance, Navy fleets that can be stationed throughout the Persian Gulf (Lostumbo et al. 2013), allow for flexibility to respond rapidly to any situation at any time across a broad range of unpredictable events. So, if at any point additional ground troops or artillery assistance is needed, the aid is available quickly and efficiently. 首先，美国需要继续部署移动作战基地，在这种情况下，可以驻扎在整个波斯湾的海军舰队，允许灵活地在任何时候对各种不可预测的事件做出快速反应。因此，如果在任何时候需要额外的地面部队或炮兵援助，可以快速有效地获得援助。
Currently in Syria and Iraq, there a few small Special Operations Forces teams deployed (Navy SEAL teams and Delta Force operators) to do small time raids against ISIS troops threatening neutral civilian populations and aid in the training of local troops. Recently, the U.S. military has drawn up early plans that would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into Syria in the coming weeks. Under this plan, “the added American forces would act primarily as advisers, offering expertise on bomb disposal and coordinating air support for the coalition of Kurds and Arabs” (Gibbons-Neff 2017). In February 2014, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper estimated the strength of the insurgency in Syria at “somewhere between 75,000 or 80,000 or up to 110,000 to 115,000” (Blanchard et al. 2014). With our military training being taught to this enormous force by a continually growing U.S. special forces presence being sent in to Syria, the rebellion will gain a HUGE (*said in exaggerated Trump voice*) advantage over the existing regime and terrorist fighting units. This making the war fought by Syrian rebels and aided by us rather than the other way around, saving both U.S. lives and money.
目前在叙利亚和伊拉克，部署了一些小型特种作战部队小组（海军海豹突击队和三角洲部队操作员），对ISIS部队进行小规模袭击，威胁中立平民，并协助培训当地部队。最近，美国军方制定了早期计划，将在未来几周向叙利亚增兵1000人。根据这项计划，“新增的美国部队将主要充当顾问，为库尔德人和阿拉伯人联盟提供炸弹处置方面的专业知识，并协调空中支援”。2014年2月，国家情报局局长詹姆斯·克拉珀（James Clapper）估计，叙利亚叛乱的强度“介于75000或80000之间，或高达110000至115000之间”。随着美国派遣到叙利亚的特种部队不断增加，我们的军事训练将传授给这支庞大的部队，与现有政权和反恐部队相比，叛乱将获得巨大的优势。这使得这场战争由叙利亚叛军进行，并得到我们的援助，而不是反过来，挽救了美国的生命和金钱。
The final piece of military presence that would ensure continued cooperation and success is that of tactical air assaults against regime ground forces via drones and launches from the nearby mobile fleets. Such an operation would heavily shift the advantage in the rebellion’s direction in multiple ways. First, these precise and powerful air assaults run by U.S. forces would quickly eradicate any regime forces that posed any sort of threat to civilian or rebellion populations. And second, knowing that they could be targeted anywhere, anytime, regime soldiers’ morale would rapidly drop causing many to flee from the conflict altogether (Pollack 2013).
确保持续合作和成功的最后一项军事存在是通过无人机对政权地面部队进行战术空袭，并从附近的机动舰队发射导弹。这样的行动将以多种方式极大地改变叛乱的优势。首先，美国部队实施的这些精确而有力的空袭将迅速铲除任何对平民或叛乱人口构成任何威胁的政权部队。其次，知道他们可能在任何地方、任何时间成为目标，政权士兵的士气将迅速下降，导致许多人完全逃离冲突。
Knowing that involvement in this conflict will save countless lives and protect the future of our country, and having the plan of action to effectively carry out this intervention, it is absolutely in the best interest of the United States government to launch this calculated military plan into action. Successful U.S. intervention would represent a useful reassertion of American power and reinforce the notion that the breaking of international law will never go smoothly for any sovereign state or organization. “At worst, the Syrian crisis would be as problematic as it is today, but there would be fewer civilian casualties, and the United States would gain leverage with its allies on other matters because of its beefed-up engagement in Syria. At best, a more aggressive U.S. effort in Syria would limit Russian overreach, increase the likelihood of a political solution, and roll back some of the destabilizing regional consequences of the Syrian implosion” (Thanassis Century Foundation). The U.S. has so much to lose by playing the isolationist role, and so much to gain by directly aiding the Syrian resistance. Said best by John F. Kennedy, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.”
留学作业在最后指出：知道参与这场冲突将挽救无数人的生命，保护美国的未来，并有行动计划来有效地进行这一干预，将这一精心策划的军事计划付诸行动绝对符合美国政府的最佳利益。美国的成功干预将代表着美国力量的有效重申，并强化这样一种观念，即任何主权国家或组织违反国际法的行为都不会顺利进行。“最坏的情况是，美国在叙利亚的危机将与今天一样成问题，但平民伤亡将减少，美国将在其他问题上与盟友取得杠杆作用，因为美国加强了对叙利亚的接触。美国在叙利亚的更积极努力最多会限制俄罗斯的过度控制，增加政治解决的可能性，并减少一些破坏性行动将叙利亚内爆的区域后果化”（塔纳西斯世纪基金会）。美国扮演孤立主义者的角色会有很多损失，而直接帮助叙利亚抵抗运动会有很多收获。约翰·F·肯尼迪说得最好，“采取行动是有风险和成本的。但它们远低于舒适的不作为所带来的长期风险。”本站提供北美作业代写或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。