Why has the Syrian war lasted 10 years?

A peaceful uprising against the president of Syria 10 years ago turned into a full-scale civil
war. The conflict has left more than 380,000 people dead, devastated cities and drawn in
other countries.

How did the Syrian war start?

Even before the conflict began, many Syrians were complaining about high unemployment,
corruption and a lack of political freedom under President Bashar al-Assad, who succeeded
his father, Hafez, after he died in 2000.

In March 2011, pro-democracy demonstrations erupted in the southern city of Deraa,

inspired by uprisings in neighbouring countries against repressive rulers.

When the Syrian government used deadly force to crush the dissent, protests demanding the
president's resignation erupted nationwide.

The unrest spread and the crackdown intensified. Opposition supporters took up arms, first
to defend themselves and later to rid their areas of security forces. Mr Assad vowed to
crush what he called "foreign-backed terrorism".

The violence rapidly escalated and the country descended into civil war. Hundreds of rebel
groups sprung up and it did not take long for the conflict to become more than a battle
between Syrians for or against Mr Assad. Foreign powers began to take sides, sending
money, weaponry and fighters, and as the chaos worsened extremist jihadist organisations
with their own aims, such as the Islamic State (IS) group and al-Qaeda, became involved.
That deepened concern among the international community who saw them as a major
threat.

Syria's Kurds, who want the right of self-government but have not fought Mr Assad's
forces, have added another dimension to the conflict.
English-Only Movement
The English-only movement, also known as Official English, refers to the debate over
making English the United States' official language in all government operations.
"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for
we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American
nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."
-President Theodore Roosevelt
This quote has given advocates for the English-only movement a sort of backbone to build
off of saying that English should be the official language because it unifies the country
instead of separating people based on their differences. Many supporters of English-only
have come to believe that bilingual education segregates immigrants by putting them into
separate classrooms based on their heritage and limits their opportunities to succeed by
preventing them from learning English. Many groups have formed all over the country to
support the initiative for Official English such as ProEnglish and English for the Children;
whose main goals include the preservation of English as the unifying language of the
country and also the disbanding of bilingual education programs. Often these groups
propose a short amount of time in an ESL classroom followed up by having all subjects
taught in only English.

The English-only movement has seen much success, however it is coupled with much
criticism and rejection. Multiple studies have been done to show the many benefits of being
bilingual in the acquisition of the English language. Those who learn other subject areas in
their native language while also learning English have shown better results in the other
subject areas and also in English. Many people who oppose the movement claim that it is
unconstitutional to force people to learn English in order to communicate with the
government and also say that it is in direct violation of our First Amendment rights to free
speech and petition. There have been a few English-only supporting groups who have been
seen as extremely racist and some even classified as hate groups because the people in them
often push for English-only out of fear/hatred of immigrants.
Taken from https://group1bilingualed.weebly.com/english-only-movement.html