Out of all the debate over the Syrian civil war, most people can agree on one thing: ISIS is horrible. They have committed egregious human rights violations, and they are beheading and shooting Christians and Muslims alike for refusing to cooperate with them. The self-stated mission of the Islamic State is to establish a “caliphate” - or Islamic government - in Syria and Iraq. This form of government would implement Sharia law, an Islamic legal system that would make many of the offenses that ISIS has committed thus far (beheading “infidels” and stoning adulterers to death) appropriate punishments for what would then be considered criminal acts. Every foreign power involved in Syria has the aim of eliminating ISIS, including both the United States and Russia.

However, the common ground ends there. Russia and their allies in the region have backed the Assad regime, which has killed thousands of Arab Spring protesters and even used inaccurate “barrel bombs” in civilian areas. Meanwhile, the United States has backed a coalition of rebel groups commonly referred to as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Although all FSA groups are fighting against Assad’s regime, one, the Islamist Al-Nusra Front, is a branch of the jihadist terrorist Al-Qaeda network. Many of the so-called “moderate” rebel groups have cooperated with Al-Nusra and one group of US-trained rebels even handed over a quarter of the weapons, vehicles, and ammunition given to them by the United States government to Al-Nusra fighters in exchange for “safe passage”. So by supporting moderate rebels, the United States has been indirectly helping a group that shares many of its goals in the region with ISIS.

So, who should the United States be supporting in the area if not the FSA? Certainly not ISIS. And probably not the Assad regime, either. Although a Syria controlled by Bashar Al-Assad would undoubtedly be more stable than the nation is currently, and Assad has historically protected Syrian Christians, not all of the Syrian people would be protected under an Assad regime. Syrian forces have made repeated attacks against civilian areas and many Syrians have migrated from those areas to neighboring states such as Turkey and Lebanon and also European nations like Germany.

How about the Syrian Kurds? Yes, they are pro-democracy and pro-west. Furthermore, they are one of the few groups that has shown an ability to fight both Assad’s forces and ISIS effectively. But some of their actions signify that their ethical standards are not much higher than other groups in the region that we look down upon for their human rights violations. Just a few days ago a report from Amnesty International, an international human rights watchdog, found the YPG (the main Kurdish militant group in Syria) guilty of razing entire villages that they recaptured from ISIS due to suspicions that the villagers had cooperated with the Islamic State. Furthermore, other villages were forcibly evacuated by the YPG under threat of airstrikes for the same reason. Although these offenses aren’t on the same level as those committed by ISIS, they do make it questionable whether the YPG meets our nation’s ethical standards.

Another argument that has been presented to me is that if there are no “good guys” fighting against ISIS in Syria, why not take unilateral action if you’re the United States? After all, we have the world’s most powerful military, why not use it? Well, this would cost a lot of money in addition to many lives, and might not even be successful in defeating ISIS or ousting Assad. It would create a conflict of interest in the region with Russia, which has backed Assad’s government. But also, inserting the United States military into the conflict in Syria would be neither moral or ethical, as some of our nation’s past military campaigns have shown. The recent bombing of a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan by a US plane is one example of this. The hospital was filled with doctors from Médecins Sans Frontières, an international NGO that provides humanitarian aid. The attack was supposedly the result of bad intelligence, but twenty-two people died as a result, which begs the question: would the United States be doing more harm than good by involving itself in yet another war in the Middle East? Other atrocities committed by United States forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, including the infamous My Lai Massacre, help to answer this question.

After reviewing all of the evidence, it would appear that the most ethical thing to do would be to stay out of Syria. All belligerents involved that have been achieving results on the ground - Assad and his allies, the Al-Nusra Front, ISIS, and the YPG - have committed some level of human rights violations, and there’s no guarantee that US forces would not do the same if they were more involved. Some past campaigns, such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, have failed their objectives to some or the full extent in addition to resulting in abhorrent human rights violations committed by American troops. The Vietcong eventually took control of Vietnam, resulting in a US defeat, and the US-backed government in Iraq is still unstable after an uprising of IS militants and defeats on the ground handed to it by the Kurdistan Regional Government, which governs the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan but has expanded into other areas over the past year. As mentioned earlier, any action that conflicts with the interests of Assad’s regime will put the United States into conflict with Russia, which is backing said regime. This final point cannot be stressed enough with respect to potential United States involvement in Syria. Any US involvement will create a “security dilemma” in the nation with existing Russian forces in Syria.

The security dilemma is a basic tenet of political theory. It boils down to this: if one nation increases its military, other nations will have to do the same in order to ensure their protection, because they cannot trust the first nation not to attack. How would this play out in Syria? If the United States increases its military presence in Syria and/or deploys ground troops, Russia will have to bolster their own garrison or risk losing the friendly Assad regime because they cannot trust the United States not to attack. The United States would then in turn have to increase their own forces, or face having them wiped out and losing control of Syria to Assad and Vladimir Putin. This vicious cycle would continue, causing more harm than good to everyone involved. For this and all the previous reasons, sound ethics dictate that the United States should stay out of Syria, as involvement will do more harm than good and undoubtedly become unethical at some point.