Something must be done about the millions of refugees fleeing Syria, though the international community is not sure who will do what to address the crisis.

This has been an ongoing problem, as more than 7 million refugees have been displaced since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011.

Yet, despite the rising numbers, the European Union and the United States had not, until recently, effectively addressed the problem. It took a drowned toddler washed up on the shores of Turkey for the international community to finally snap to attention. He was fleeing Syria for Greece.

President Barack Obama announced last Thursday that the U.S. will take in 5,000 more refugees than the 70,000 a year quota. Over the next year, 10,000 more Syrian refugees will be welcomed onto U.S. soil. While this is an important step on behalf of President Obama, the U.S. needs to do more. However, it is very unlikely that will be the case.

Since 2011, the U.S. has only accepted about 1,300 Syrian refugees. The figure hardly compares to the millions of displaced Syrians and reflects a non-interventionist foreign policy.

In fact, as the war in Syria unfolded, the president mostly stayed on the sidelines and avoided putting boots on the ground when the Islamic State reached international attention. He has since stated that he did not believe a ground war would suit U.S. interests and would result in significant backlash. Critics of Obama’s foreign policy have cited this approach as a reason why the Islamic State grew so quickly and the crisis worsened.

But it’s still no surprise that Obama is continuing this calculated approach. Yet, for Syracuse University Middle East Studies Director Yüksel Sezgin, the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the country in desperation are forgotten over politics.

“…I think the U.S., due to its involvement in Iraq, due to its involvement in Syria, I think the U.S. has moral obligation to do more,” he said. “It can’t be just 10,000…it’s not going to do much.”

Sezgin isn’t the only person calling for more action. The issue is relatively bipartisan – with politicians like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush asking to take in more refugees and a number of House Democrats writing a letter to the president in support of welcoming over 100,000 more by next year.

Most of the hesitation from both sides of the aisle comes from the possibility that an open border would make it easier for uninvited guests, mostly members of the Islamic State, to come into the country.

However, President Obama has another delicate matter to balance: amid the crisis, the Pentagon officially confirmed that Russia is building up its military presence in Syria. This is a powerful enemy that Obama has avoided crossing paths with, and a stronger Russian presence in the Middle East only encourages the administration to back off taking a harder stance on the crisis.

Despite political complications, the United States has the resources and the capability to do more. Refugee centers have been left crying out into empty air for aid. The United Nations’ main refugee agency, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees, asked for $4.5 billion this year, only to receive less than half of that amount globally by September.

Now is the opportune time for the president to act or risk blame for not having prevented the crisis in the first place.

Don’t expect much, though. The Obama administration has yet to express any significant regret for choosing not to actively intervene throughout the war.

“If you don’t end the war in Syria, the humanitarian crisis will continue no matter,” Sezgin said. “Perhaps Syria will become a country where only the terrorists and only ISIS will live in. There will not be just any regular, ordinary mothers and fathers and parents, kids going to school.”

Keely Sullivan is a senior broadcast and digital journalism and French dual major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at kasull02@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @specialksully.

Published on September 17, 2015 at 12:13 am