Checks and Balances:
The President, Congress and a Foreign Policy Crisis in the Middle East
Sep 2, 2014 9:04pm
An additional 350 U.S. troops will go to Iraq to protect U.S. personnel stationed in Baghdad, the White House announced today.
The State Dept. had requested extra military personnel for security, and after the Department of Defense reviewed that request and recommended it be granted, President Obama approved the additional forces today, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced in a statement to reporters.
“The additional forces will not serve a combat role,” Earnest wrote. In today’s daily press briefing, Earnest again reiterated Obama’s stance that the U.S. will not send combat troops to fight on Iraq.
A U.S. official said the 350 new troops headed to Baghdad are a mix of Marines and Army personnel already serving in the U.S. Central Command’s theater of operations, which stretches from Egypt eastward through the Middle East and Turkey, up to Kazakhstan.
This deployment will bring to 820 the total of U.S. forces responsible for augmenting diplomatic security in Iraq, Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said in a statement to reporters, noting that a total of 405 military personnel will go to Baghdad, allowing 55 currently stationed there to leave Iraq.
While these troops will provide security, Earnest noted that the U.S. will continue helping Iraqi troops fight ISIS. U.S. bombs have continued to fall on ISIS targets in northern Iraq, in support of Kurdish forces fighting ISIS west if Erbil, since Obama authorized the airstrike campaign just over three weeks ago. Last week, the U.S. military expanded its anti-ISIS campaign southward to assist Shiite Turkmen surrounded by ISIS forces in the town of Amirli, and the Pentagon announced another airstrike there over the weekend.
On Thursday, the president will attend a NATO summit in Wales, where he will gather with U.S. allies that have expressed fears about the threat of ISIS, particularly as it has recruited large numbers of fighters from European nations.
“The president will be consulting this week with NATO allies regarding additional actions to take against ISIL and to develop a broad-based international coalition to implement a comprehensive strategy to protect our people and to support our partners in the fight against ISIL,” Earnest wrote, hinting at broader cooperating and potential action.
Obama is also sending top advisers to the region, Earnest announced: Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and top White House counter-terrorism adviser Lisa Monaco will travel separately to the Middle East “in the near term to build a stronger regional partnership,” Earnest wrote
What is your opinion? Should the US escalate military forces into Iraq and possibly Syria? Will the American people be willing to engage in a third ground war afterour conflicts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Al Queda in Afghanistan? Offer your opinion in this blog. Please be respectful of other people's opinion and please base your answers on Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 readings.
Currently ISIS (Islamic State In Iraq And Syria) have been threatening the United States and other nations such as Great Britain by kidnapping and decapitating journalists and then posting videos of it on the internet. These horrific acts have not been taken as seriously as they should and if not stopped could eventually lead to more executions of American citizens and possibly an attack on U.S. soil by ISIS. In my opinion ,based on this information provided in the video and the article, the U.S. should increase its military forces in the region in order to stop these harmful acts of violence against Americans and our allies from escalating and bring order and peace to Iraq.
ReplyDelete-Although many people may agree with my opinion, I believe that most Americans will not want to engage in a third ground war in the Middle East because they may fear more soldiers may die for an unjust cause.
ISIS has not only proposed threats to the U.S. but they actually went through with them as they released another video killing the second innocent American Journalist. I believe these threats were not taken seriously enough and now the U.S. has blood on there hands. In my opinion the only option is to increase military activity in order to prevent more innocent deaths, and to aim for a quicker approach to fight back. A third ground war is a lot to ask for after previous conflicts but i feel like this is the only thing left to do considering there was bloodshed and it may only get worse. I believe the American people would rather fight harder for a long waited victory against terrorist organizations rather than do nothing and leave more blood in the hands of our nation.
ReplyDeleteIt is my belief that if the United States pursues a large conflict in the Middle East, it will only encourage more and more groups like this to emerge. Though, if that means potentially saving American lives than a war might be worth it. The government must take action against direct threat and the killing of American citizens. The policy of the US has been to not negotiate with terrorists, so the one road to follow would be militarization and aggression. More importantly, intelligence is needed before doing any of this, eliminating ISIS is the top priority, and a quick strike at leadership may weaken the group. While the people might not be behind it fully, the government would only have to wait for more atrocities to justify a ground war.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video and reading the article, I believe that the US should increase military activity in the area due to the threats and actions of ISIS. The terrorist group has not only threatened the United States, they have taken action against the United States with the brutal murder of an innocent journalist, James Foley. The documentation of Foley’s decapitation is also a violent act because it really shows the brutality and the corruption of the group. Now, with the recent beheading of Steven Sotloff as a "second message to America" confirms the group will take more violent actions against America. The only option left is to increase military force because the murdering of innocents needs to be stopped. In a statement, the President reinforces that, “The United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people”. The clear option to keep our security is to send in troops. While some people may be resistant to this, it is necessary to keep the protection of American citizens.
ReplyDeleteWith the loss of another U.S. journalist to murder by ISIS, America needs to make not just more of a presence, but more of a stand against terrorist actions in the Middle East. Sure, the U.S. has conducted a significant amount of airstrikes to prove their willingness to take action, but the execution committed by ISIS is a message of its own that acts of terror are not going to be stopped due to the presence and actions of U.S. drones and air-crafts. Ultimately I feel that if the U.S. does not get involved sooner, they are wasting ammunition, men, and time because the oppressive actions of the members of ISIS will not stop if the U.S. continues to merely monitor the actions and send them reminders that they are there. The government will have to send in military forces eventually, and it should do it as quickly as they can before they begin to run out of time and lose the edge.
ReplyDeleteAfter only recently evacuating soldiers from the Middle East in the U.S.' War on Terrorism, the American people won't be supportive of the government sending the forces back there. The different government systems of the U.S. and Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Syria have developed a barrier between the nations that would make compromise difficult to obtain. The U.S.' democratic view deeply disapproves of the Middle Eastern countries' more totalitarian approach to governing its people. Democracy's fight with totalitarianism has gone on long enough to create a history of disharmony between America and the Middle Eastern countries. This can be seen in events such as the oil embargo, the storming of the U.S. embassy building in Iran, and of course the terrorist actions on 9/11. This disapproval and history of hate has, naturally, caused American citizens to hate and fear the people of the Middle East and their actions. There are also a few Americans opposed to going into further action due to the ever-rising numbers in debt or maybe even the risk of losing more American lives. Most Americans saw the entanglements and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as nightmares and are not approving of starting the process all over again.
- Jake Zuena
I believe that these bombings against ISIS is completely necessary. Although some may believe that these bombings are only leading to more death of U.S. citizens, they are not thinking about the greater good. Although these bombings may lead to more death of innocent people, the bombings are stopping ISIS from escalating their actions any further, for right now. So the life taken from one person is not nearly as bad as the potential lives taken of hundreds of others by ISIS. These bombings are in fact costing lives and a large amount of people in this nation do not like them, so the thought of another war against another terrorist organization sounds even worse to more people. Some people may not mind a few deaths to save hundreds, but a war that will cost more lives then could be saved is ridiculous. I would not support another war in the middle east. So, in short, I support these bombings but not another war like the one against Al Queda.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should absolutely escalate military force in Iraq and Syria for a multitude of reasons. One obvious reason would be the execution of American journalists such as James Foley, who's beheading was taped for all to see. This displays the lack of respect for life that ISIS possesses and the threat to our national security, as Nick and Devon both mentioned. However, if that is not enough to persuade the thoughts of the United States, ISIS explicitly stated that it "sees conflict with the United States as inevitable," according to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. ISIS has the motivation and the capability to bring a fight to the United States, so why is the problem not being confronted? If we don't escalate the war effort now, then when will we? Do we have to wait for another attack on America before engaging in war?
ReplyDeleteSurely, there are people who are tired of war and are not in favor of raising the national debt because of the war, like Jake mentioned. It would make sense that people disapprove of war as the majority of Americans voted for President Obama, with one of his campaign promises being deescalation of war in the Middle East. However, it is my opinion that the thoughts of the American people have progressed towards increased ground efforts in the Middle East with the introduction of the inhumane videos of the beheading of innocent reporters in the Middle East. Apparently, deescalation is not working, so America needs to try something to lessen the treat of ISIS. ISIS will not go away without American intervention; therefore war efforts must be escalated and are inevitable.
While the threat of the Islamic State is overwhelming and constantly growing, the United States must maintain extreme caution in this particular situation. It is understood that thousands of innocent Iraqi and Syrian citizens are being slaughtered to no end at the hands of the extremist group. We also know that the Kurds in particular have been allies to the West for some time and I fully support not only the safety of the Kurdish peoples but of all of the innocent men, women, and children at danger in both Iraq and Syria.
ReplyDeleteThe IS has also threatened a multitude of western nations, including the US. I personally approve of any defensive action that would thwart these threats. Increasing military/security personnel in and around US property/interests in IS territory for preventive and non-offensive measures is a great idea.
However, the United States simply cannot afford to wage full scale war, especially in an unstable region such as the Middle East. With tensions rising in Russia and the Ukraine as well as in Israel and Gaza; the world's stage is already flooded with violent conflicts and wars that are absolutely unnecessary. Why add another one to the list?
I think it is quite appropriate for the US to provide military air support, resources such as food, ammunition,weapons,and fuel as well as diplomatic backing to the Iraqi government or any western friendly group that requires it to repel the IS expansion. Despite this, deploying combat ready troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria is absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. After Operation Desert Storm, the Iraq War, and the War on Terror in Afghanistan; the United States military has had plenty of unnecessary presence in the Middle East for decades. I assume that the American people would not approve of the billions of dollars (or possibly trillions if history means anything) of taxpayer money that would be needed to support such a war; nor would they accept putting more American lives on the line for yet another war in the infamous region known as the Middle East.
TLDR;
Yes, bomb IS to obstruct their expansion.
Yes, protect American interests in IS territory.
Yes, support our allies in the ME (Kurds, Iraqi Gov., innocents, etc.)
No, absolutely do NOT escalate another war.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhatever, I'm not going remember the whole thing but: No, stop bombing, its a waste of time, money, and resources, and though yes it may weaken the terrorists, it will not discourage, if not further encourage and strengthen their propaganda. However, I am not fully supportive of full on US military involvement; need halp from the UN or NATO
DeleteSigh, I just wrote my entire response and then went to submit it, however, it then sent me to a sign-in screen and it was deleted, So here's round two.
ReplyDeleteWith the recent tragedy regarding the execution of another American citizen, James Foley, by the terrorist organization ISIS, the State Department must devise an appropriate course of action in order to neutralize the threat and ensure the safety of American citizens in the Middle East and around the world. The immediate and perhaps most obvious course of action would appear to be to increase military activity in the area until the threat no longer exists. I do not disagree with this plan, however, I believe that it could spiral into a drawn out conflict that would not be very effective. For example, if drone and airstrikes are too careless, then it could potentially result in the death of more innocent civilians or result in the rise of yet another terrorist organization. I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the United States to engage in another ground war in the Middle East. Further escalation of the conflict could merely ignite the already complex issues in the Middle East. Having said that, the contrary is simply not acceptable. To handle these recent events and the threat of ISIS lightly would only allow for the growth of terrorism in the Middle East and other parts of the world.
I feel you Colin
DeleteI do not believe the U.S. should escalate military forces into Iraq and possibly Syria. While I do acknowledge that ISIS' actions and use of violence have been inhumane, initially the hostilities did not directly affect the United States; consequently, by Obama choosing to send troops to help the Iraqi troops, we are increasing the risk and threat of the United States itself being brought into a declared war with ISIS. Americans will not be willing to engage in another war like the two previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because as of now the threat towards the U.S. is not as great as it would be if war were to break out, many troops lost their lives in the last two wars (with another war, there'd be deaths), and our country is already in trillion dollars of debt, and a war would most likely be costly. However, because our nation is a democratic republic, it's up to our government representatives and officials to decide whether or not to send troops, and possibly engage in war.
ReplyDelete~Bridget Keegan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith these responses sometimes the best thing to do is to type it on a word doc than copy and paste it. Sorry your initial response was deleted.
DeleteWill do for future reference
DeleteWith the loss of another U.S. journalist to murder by ISIS, America needs to make not just more of a presence, but more of a stand against terrorist actions in the Middle East. Sure, the U.S. has conducted a significant amount of airstrikes to prove their willingness to take action, but the execution committed by ISIS is a message of its own that acts of terror are not going to be stopped due to the presence and actions of U.S. drones and air-crafts. Ultimately I feel that if the U.S. does not get involved sooner, they are wasting ammunition, men, and time because the oppressive actions of the members of ISIS will not stop if the U.S. continues to merely monitor the actions and send them reminders that they are there. The government will have to send in military forces eventually, and it should do it as quickly as they can before they begin to run out of time and lose the edge.
ReplyDeleteAfter only recently evacuating soldiers from the Middle East in the U.S.' War on Terrorism, the American people won't be supportive of the government sending the forces back there. The different government systems of the U.S. and Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Syria have developed a barrier between the nations that would make compromise difficult to obtain. The U.S.' democratic view deeply disapproves of the Middle Eastern countries' more totalitarian approach to governing its people. Democracy's fight with totalitarianism has gone on long enough to create a history of disharmony between America and the Middle Eastern countries. This can be seen in events such as the oil embargo, the storming of the U.S. embassy building in Iran, and of course the terrorist actions on 9/11. This disapproval and history of hate has, naturally, caused American citizens to hate and fear the people of the Middle East and their actions. There are also a few Americans opposed to going into further action due to the ever-rising numbers in debt or maybe even the risk of losing more American lives. Most Americans saw the entanglements and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as nightmares and are not approving of starting the process all over again. JAKE ZUENA
The ISIS crisis is certainly a tricky issue, few people want to see increased troops in the Middle East, but at the same time, don’t want Americans being killed. In my opinion based on both the article and the video, our government has made the right decision by increasing troops in Iraq. Troops should not currently increase in Syria because no US personnel, military, or diplomatic are at risk, but should instead increase security at their own locations. The troops in Iraq will be used to help protect both Americans and the people of Iraq. It is my belief that, not the increased troops so much as our advisors such as: Secretary of State John Kerry or Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, will be able solve the larger conflict in the Middle East. By doing so, it is hoped that tensions will decrease and Americans will stop being killed by the terror network, ISAS. It is vital that troops are present for protection, however the President must be wary to not create a ground war. If a ground war is engaged it is my belief that more threats will be made by terrorist groups, like ISAS, to the United States. Though, there are many people against increased troops in Iraq, I believe they are necessary to protect the Americans located there; I am also hopeful that diplomacy, not troops will be able to calm the tensions in Iraq and Syria. - ERIN CURLEY
ReplyDeleteMy opinion of this article and video is one of indecision. While I strongly believe no innocent civilian shall ever be harmed due to political entanglements I also strongly believe that human rights must be protected at all costs. Despite the claims that the 350 troops are not there for combat purposes the question of why they are present is there. Why would 350 troops be called into the Middle East if peace negotiations are to be made? On the other hand; what kind of inhumanities are occurring in the Middle East? The beheading of Steven Sotloff and other ISIS acts of terrorism is a driving force for involvement; however my perspective is solely based on basic knowledge that was established to me through American media. After long contemplation I decided that U.S. involvement in the Middle East militarily should be postponed for the reason it could possible drive America into a third world war. I don't believe Americans will be willing to fight another war; despite the high tension that is present against terrorist groups. Additionally, I believe proactively compromising situations as opposed to inhumanely eradicating a group is the solution. Allow U.S. officials to determine how peace will be made. Approaching war with caution is the best solution. ~Kat Wunderlin
ReplyDeleteGood Job Guys!
ReplyDeleteISIS needs to fall to its demise, and the only way it will crumble is if the United States uses extreme military force. If this means starting up another war, like the one with Al Queda, then I believe that is what the U.S. should do. ISIS needs to feel inferior and intimidated. I think most Americans will agree that war is necessary because we have already seen in just a few short months the danger ISIS presents to the American people and the entire globe. The killing of two American journalists (who posed no threat to ISIS whatsoever) is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. In order to protect our journalists in Iraq, ISIS must be destroyed. Placing a few hundred troops in Iraq is a smart idea because it will give the U.S. an embassy in the Middle East, that can somewhat protect the journalists and Iraqi citizens there. The troops being there, not looking for combat, also buys America some time to try and figure out its next steps pertaining to this issue.
ReplyDeleteAngelica Ansbacher
The situation concerning ISIS is one of serious controversy right now. In my opinion, more troops do need to be deployed in Iraq in order to stop this terrorist threat. With the death of another innocent American, we as a country have no choice but to fight back. The controversial aspect of this topic is the lives of American troops and that many citizens will not be willing to send more people back into war. This does make sense considering we did withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Although many people will become outraged at yet another war, it is necessary due to the risk of terrorist attacks on American soil like 9/11. The possibility of more innocent Americans being killed should make skeptical Americans more accepting of stopping this threat immediately. ISIS has made itself clear, that it isn’t willing to negotiate or become peaceful towards the United States, therefore physical force is needed in order to stop this brutality. I completely agree with Angelica in the fact that we need to make ISIS fearful of the United States. We have the weaponry and militaristic skills to do so. A war is inevitable, but it must be done in the proper way.
ReplyDeleteLauren Boix
Recently, the issue of terrorist air strikes and documented beheadings performed by ISIS in Syria has emerged into a large conflict affecting the United States. Along with many other opinions, I believe that sending more troops is the right decision at this time. While it may be argued that sending more troops is unnecessary only to cause more deaths, as this problem escalates, it is important to take serious actions in order to protect our nation. However, I do not believe that just because ISIS has committed violent attacks we should immediately send troops to fight back. Some negotiation should first be attempted. This must be done with caution for we have seen previous terrorist attacks in history made against the United States and how quickly world conflicts can intensify. Thus, I agree with the government’s decision in which “additional forces will not serve a combat role.”
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the United States needs to escalate military forces for many reasons. The major reason is that ISIS has so far beheaded two US journalists. A couple of weeks ago they beheaded James Foley and just recently they beheaded Steven Sotloff. The next person on their list, apparently, is a innocent British hostage. ISIS has also been executing hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens. This needs to be stopped before it gets out of hand. Soon enough ISIS will be committing acts of terrorism in westernized countries like those in Europe and the United States. I think the United States should attempt to assassinate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, because if the top of the group falls then, shown by the assassination of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, the rest of the group usually falls with it. I don't agree with what Jasmine said about negotiating with the ISIS terrorists. The United States has had a policy of not negotiating with terrorists for a long time. We should not give in to the violence of ISIS and we should definitely not reward them for these violent acts by negotiating with them. I agree with the United States sending in additional forces, but I think it should be taken to the next level. Maybe if Jihadi John executes President Obama's golf clubs he'll finally realize the full extent of the problem and that we need to take this much more seriously.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States must maintain a stronger military presence in the middle east. Although many people will disagree with this action it is necessary in order to insure our safety from groups such as ISIS. We have under estimated them and now we have seen what they are capable of. In the end we have two choices they are to step back and allow ISIS to continue their executions and other brutal activities, eventually striking us at home. Or we can fight back and try to dismantle ISIS through military means. After years and years of involvement in the middle east the American public is probably not ready to get involved in another war, with boots on the ground. So we have limited ourselves to air bombings. However if and when the bombings are no longer effective what will we do then? This is why we need to increase our presence in the middle east. I agree with John Venticinque, we cannot negotiate with people who have decapitated innocent journalists to send a message to the United States.
ReplyDeleteI think it is in the nation's best interest to try to contain the ISIS terrorist attacks on American's in Syria and Iraq in order to show that terrorism on any scale will not be tolerated toward the American people. Although it is difficult to find where the terrorist groups may be stationed, it is important to the safety of our nation to stop the obvious attacks on the American people before it spreads to onto our home soil. Although most Americans will oppose to a full-fledged war because of the waste of resources and risk to American lives, throughout history war-efforts have proven to improve economic crises and stimulate national pride.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauretta in that it is in America’s best interest that the US escalates military forces into Iraq and Syria. As mentioned in the video, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel describes this threat as being “beyond anything we’ve seen”. Considering the threats that the nation has seen in the past, this threat is something worth addressing and taking preventative actions against. With ISIS claiming responsibility for the beheading of James Foley and promising that other Westerners who are being held captive will be next should be a clear indication that efforts need to be taken before more innocent lives are lost.
ReplyDeleteThe killing of the two American journalists gives America more of a reason to take action against ISIS. This shows that ISIS lacks respect for America, that they do not value the lives of Americans and they possess a belief that they are superior to America. This threatens the security and the lives of Americans everywhere. Not only must these threats be heard; they must also be recognized as serious dangers and thus be addressed. I believe that conflict is inevitable with ISIS. The issues in Iraq and Syria are not going to go away on their own. If anything they are going to escalate. Before ISIS gets too powerful, the US needs to take action. The effort that is being taken right now is not enough. As others have mentioned, escalating a war in the Middle East is not ideal, however, this may be the best way to end the conflict rather than waiting for it to resolve itself.
While there are reasons to intervene and escalate another war in the Middle East, the people of the US mostly likely will not be supportive of becoming involved in yet another conflict. Although the national debt is high and the war would only augment that number, Lauretta pointed out that in history, war can help the economy. Therefore, although funding a war is costly, the economy may be stimulated as a result of action being taken against ISIS. Unfortunately, there is the potential that innocent lives will be lost whether action is taken against ISIS or not. However, it is the government’s choice whether they are going to take on an offensive role or a defensive role in this conflict. In other words, the US could take action now or wait for ISIS to make the move. I agree with those who believe that US presence in the Middle East should be increased now as this seems to be the most effective way to protect America.
I will start off by stating that ISIS should be held militarily accountable for their actions and should be contained and dismantled. With that being said, President Obama and the rest of America must recognize that a declaration of war is EXACTLY what ISIS wants. There will always be radicals plotting terror acts on America in some random basement, but what is unavoidable is that when the US declares war on ISIS, the terror group will turn to their Islamic brethren and point out that the "demonic Americans" have declared war on the worldly Islamic state. The US needs to be excruciatingly precise in our airstrikes/attacks in these countries and not hit civilians or else ISIS will have zero resistance into turning the "war with the demon Americans" into a moral cause and convince the Islamic state that the US has declared a war on the religion and culture itself.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is important to know that not everyone in the Middle East is in support of ISIS and they experience widespread resistance, they are on the verge of gaining the most crucial ally in the world: Saudi Arabia. ISIS is planning to replace the al-Saud family as the head of Saudi Arabia. The strand of Fundamentalist Islam that ISIS follows is known as Wahhabism; a strand that was developed IN Saudi Arabia as well as existing in a deal between the al-Wahhab and the al-Saud families to declare Wahhabism as the culture, language and religion in that region. Essentially the most important understanding of Wahhabism is that if you have not converted already, you face two choices: convert or be killed. The Fundamentalist strain of Islam now boasts a terrifying upper hand on the emirs to ultimately have complete domination over the Saudi people. Now while this sounds like the worst is can get, ISIS may essentially deadlock the entire world in an energy crisis. ISIS holding more land in Saudi Arabia would be great for them, they are really after the oil. If ISIS holds Saudi Arabia, they will have the greatest worldly presence they could ask for, holding the country that supplies the world its oil. At all costs we must avoid this situation, but ISIS and the Saudis may be one in the same very soon. Vice President Joe Biden stated that "we must follow them to the gates of hell." Well I just hope that our commander in chief and our diplomats can convince the world powers to help in this worldly crisis, or we very well may be following ISIS to the gates of hell.
I think that the president should begin to remove troops from the middle east as he promised when he was running for election. I also think that the threat that ISIS poses to America should not be taken lightly and that while removing our main forces from the area we should keep a number of special forces units in the region so that they can follow any leads to stopping ISIS. I believe that we need to pull our military back home so that we can prepare if we need to enter Syria and if we need to step in with what Russia is doing in Ukrane militarily. We cannot afford to look at just what is happening in the middle east but also what is happening around the world and as tensions are already high between the US and Russia with what is happening in Ukrane and we should be prepared for the worst case scenario that could occur.
ReplyDelete^Brian Pursley sorry forgot to change the display name...
DeleteI agree with the decision to send more troops to Iraq if the troops are supposed to be there for protection and not combat. Although sending troops is a step in the direction of combat, I think it is the correct move as it provides the necessary security without fully committing to war. Although another ground war will be difficult since the majority of the American public does not support fighting another war, it is unacceptable to allow Isis to continue to commit acts of terrorism. Isis sent a very clear message by filming two innocent American journalists being beheaded and it is U.S. policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Obviously Isis is not going away and will only become more dangerous if they can continue to grow and gain more resources. If war is what it takes to contain and end Isis' terrorism then Americans will have to accept that.
ReplyDeleteThe killing of the journalists by ISIS is unforgivable. These individuals are not warriors; they are our eyes and ears in places we cannot enter. That being said, these individuals know where they're going; historically, the Middle East is not safe place for an American besides the State of Israel. James Foley, the first journalist to be senselessly killed, was actually taken hostage in 2011 in Libya, while he covered the political struggle occurring there. He was released 44 days later. This shows that he did know the risks of going into a politically unstable country to report on its matters when he entered Syria in 2012. There is no guarantee of safety when going to a dangerous place.
ReplyDeleteISIS will not stop their senseless killing of innocent individuals if the United States stops its airstrikes. They cannot be appeased, but a full military invasion will not do any good either, and it will only make the United States look like a war hawk. A full-scale military invasion would also cost too much in money and lives for the United States. ISIS is still a minority in these countries, sure, an extremely dangerous and misguided minority, but there are too few of them for a full ground force by the United States. Isolation of ISIS from its possible targets is the best solution. Revenge on the group for its monstrous killings of innocent individuals would bring about much peace of mind, but it would prove to be an action based more on emotion than on logic. Separating them from their targets will do the trick, and hopefully inner circle power struggles will surface in ISIS, and the group will tear itself apart. In the meantime, non-combatant Americans would be wise to stay away from Syria and Iraq.
-Jeffrey Horowitz
This current conflict has resulted in many different opinions. I think that it is in our own best interest that we have troops in the Middle East providing security. I do not believe that we should go to war because just as Brian has said above, the declaration of war is exactly what ISIS wants. We do not want the United States looking like the bad guy in the end. Although we have many good reasons for starting a war, the results may not be very successful. We do not want to spend lots of money of this war and we also do not this was resulting in the deaths of many American soldiers. Also, negative results of a war can result in Americans losing faith in their country. I also agree with Nicholas that large conflict in the Middle East can result in the formation of many more groups against the United States. I think that the president should create a solution to this problem that is not war. War is not always the answer.
ReplyDelete-Jamie Ahlers
Currently in the Middle East there is terrorist organization known as ISIS, who have been ravaging the northern part of Iraq for the past couple of months. It is important to understand what kind of group ISIS is before making any judgments. ISIS is a radical Sunni group that is composed of roughly 10,000 fighting members against a Shi'ite majority. After the Iraq War, which ended the rule of Sadamm, a Sunni, the US government put into the power a Shi'ite government which then brutally treated the Sunnis. The Sunni radicals decided to fight back and now the country is basically fighting a civil war. However the point im trying to make is that this is their war, not ours. We are not the United States that just defeated Hitler with a booming economy. We are the United States who has a lacking economy, stagnating social issues due to ignorant Republicans, a super weathly who actually looks to profit off war and make the middle class smaller. By entering in a conflict with ISIS, we are ignorantly choosing to be the world police instead of policing our own society. Many countries in this world are democracies yet they don't go around invading other countries and skyrocketing the national debt. So the US government should the prosperous people we once were a favor and not enter a war. Although it was sad to hear that two AMERICAN JOURNALIST were killed, it is important to clear up this events. First of all these are seasoned journalist who knew exactly what they were doing and if they made it out alive, it would have been one great story, but they put their lives in danger and they paid the ultimate price. In addition Im pretty sure that most AMERICANS live in AMERICA meaning the US government shouldnt put a country of 330 million plus into more debt because of defense spending because TWO americans died on a foreign soil. Therefore I disagree with the previous post because are we really providing security for Americans here in America by sending troops over there? No. So once America has a economy growing at 4% a year, if that ever happens, have a fair tax system, equal rights, and fair immigration then maybe just maybe i think that 94 drone strikes isnt too much.
ReplyDeleteBrittany, I respectfully disagree. If you look at history, we can see that World War II was also not our war, not at first. European countries tried to avoid war with Germany, but decided that involvement was necessary after multiple invasions. We also stayed out of the war as much as we could until we were attacked by Japan. We all want to avoid war as much as possible, but sometimes it is necessary in order to push back an aggressor. While we may not currently be at war with ISIS, they are certainly at war with us. They have made this clear through the murdering of two U.S journalists. ISIS is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, and if they're not stopped they can pose a threat to U.S citizens, foreign soil or not. While America's goal of protecting democracy may not take priority over domestic issues such as the economy, protecting the citizens of this country does. I'm not saying that full scale war is the answer necessarily, but putting off this issue as if it has nothing to do with America is ignorant.
ReplyDeleteAs for my opinion on this topic, I can only say that we must take extreme caution in further involving ourselves in the ISIS threat. And it is indeed a threat. Like I said before, removing all troops from Iraq will only cause ISIS to provoke us further through more murders or worse, a full scale terrorist attack on domestic soil perhaps. However, declaring war will not only cost American lives and resources, but can also increase tensions throughout the world. I unfortunately believe that war may be the only answer and that the decision has already been made for us by ISIS. If we don't engage them, they can and will attack us.
-Rob Catinella
By any stretch of reasonable assumption, the United States has the means, at least in terms of muscle and of technology, to wipe out every known ISIS base; this, however, could cause civilian deaths, and as Brian Howe has said, the militants would surely spin such results to their benefit. As of now, the group is small enough not to pose any strong threat to actual national security; the more negative the U.S. appears, however, the closer they potentially become to significance. Some posts here have contended, as many citizens have, that the killings of innocent journalists is in fact a threat to national security. No coherent reasoning would seem to lead to this conclusion, given that these journalists put themselves in harm's way, as Brittany points out, and with full knowledge of their doing so, as proven by Jeff's noting of Foley's previous stint as a hostage in the Middle East. While his and other such journalists' efforts are noble and essential to public awareness on these matters, neither his nor any other journalist's death translates in any way to the United States itself being in harm's way.
ReplyDeleteISIS has deemed conflict with the U.S. to be something they are not afraid of. Whether this is entirely true or not, they clearly have a plan that rests on open warfare with us. It's doubtful that this is there only plan of action, but nonetheless it would be best to avoid playing into any scenario for which they are almost undoubtedly prepared. Airstrikes and further military involvement, therefore, look to me like the U.S. administration inching further and further onto increasingly thinner ice. With this in mind, if I had any way of influencing government decisions (which I don't, having not appeared on any of the latest Forbes lists), I would strongly suggest an immediate and less than gradual deescalation of all involvement in the area of disturbance.
It has been said that deescalation is not working. If this is the case, I would wonder what deescalation was intended to work at. By May of 2012, close to 4,500 U.S. military members had been killed in Iraq. Deaths by year for U.S. members of the Iraq Coalition were several hundred a year, until the number dropped to 60 in 2010, followed by 54 in 2011, and 1 in 2012. Is shaving the military death count of Americans by 94% from its peak in 2007 to the drop-off in 2011 "not working," by any definition? [Source: http://icasualties.org/] Note, the military death toll in Afghanistan peaked later, in 2010, but is only half of that in Iraq and also has only decreased since that figure.
The American people are war-weary. Military lives are being preserved by acknowledging this. I'm aware this sounds insensitive, but the death of an American journalist across the world as a result of his own actions does not justify sending hundreds of young men who were lucky to escape the high death tolls of the past decade out into the line of fire anew.
Americans are also debt-weary, and a new war would push them beyond the limit. The Republican party can say all they want that what the people want is revenge, and flaunt as many skewed polls as they can carry to that effect, but the truth is that everyone but the super rich is on hard times right now, and would be hurt by more astronomical spending, with the same group excepted. If a Republican were currently President, and was trying to deescalate war, then the Democratic party would very likely get up on a podium and denounce him or her as a coward as well. The entire party split on the issue is purely political, and anyone who says otherwise is blind, either by chance or by choice. At the end of the day, thousands of American lives are NOT pawns to be thrown at the perceived foe in order to appear stronger than a rival election candidate. They are precious, they are vital to the population's sanity, and they outweigh a single one lost when risk met brutality.
~Brian Walker
EDIT: Luckily for me I copied this into a side document before trying to post, because it would have been lost upon seeing a sign-in screen. While I'm back here again, I'd take the time to address Rob's recently added comment that the World Wars were not our wars.
ReplyDeleteIn these cases, the countries you mentioned were attacked, invaded, and so on, as were we by a strong nation. ISIS is not a nation, it is a few thousand insurgents. As such, I don't believe it to be, as of now, an aggressor; I would label it closer to a pest, if I had to. ISIS may want war, but President Obama was just recently (and rather justly) criticized for giving in to terrorists' desires upon trading hostages, thereby releasing multiple serious terror offenders back into the fray of Middle Eastern chaos.
If the U.S. were to kick the hornet's nest that ISIS has become, then legitimate security concerns would ensue. To refer again back to Brian Howe's comment, anti-American propaganda writes itself as soon as a civilian is killed by a drone strike. And, then, we have a war, and thousands of military deaths, and an economy in a tailspin opposite a towering debt surrounding an over inflated balloon of prices on many essentials, leading to further public discontent with the government and continued radicalization of party differences, further slowing (if possible) any and all Congressional matters as the entire nation grinds to a halt because insurgents killed a reporter.
We all agree that caution is needed. But one doesn't approach a rabid animal that just defiled a single spot of grass on one's lawn with caution by slowly egging it on, adding weapons to one's hands, and inching closer and closer; caution involves backing away, whereas action involves killing it instantly. As I said at the beginning of this entire post, we likely have the firepower to successfully pull off the latter; in my mind, however, it's just not worth the risk of the worst-case scenario I envision spiraling out of any direct, violent, military-on-military contact with ISIS.
As per Mr. Bachman’s suggestion, I tried signing removing my msd23 account from the Google toggle menu, and only signed in with my personal Google account, which seems to be allowing me to post on the blog though I couldn’t when I was signed in to both. For any students that couldn’t sign in over the weekend, check that you are only signed in to one Google account at a time.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, escalating the war in the Middle East should be a last resort option only. Though I understand that remaining cautious and reserved in the face of a undoubtedly violent militant group is dangerous, I agree with many of the students that escalating the war will only put a larger target on the backs of American citizens. It is beyond unfortunate that a few Americans (I’m not sure of the exact number) have lost their lives on foreign soil at the hands of ISIS, but I believe initializing a formal war will only increase the risk of a terrorist attack on our own soil, which would harm mass amounts of citizens; personally, that is not a risk I am willing to take under the current circumstances. Furthermore, beginning a war when we do not yet have accurate intelligence of ISIS’ true whereabouts (unless the U.S. government does has this information and simply has not disclosed it to the public) will result in the loss of many innocent citizens in Middle Eastern countries. Since America’s inception as a world “Super Power,” we have advertised our mission as one to protect the lives of the innocents who cannot protect themselves from their own corrupt governments and impoverished states; going into a war without the proper intelligence would only be going against our own moral principles as well as hurt our reputation abroad, increasing the already high tensions between ourselves and the Middle East. That being said, however, ISIS is obviously a threat that is not going away and we must be prepared to take action against them. In my opinion, the best way to do this would be to not make it a mission of just America, but to get our foreign allies, and possibly the U.N. involved. This would allow America access to any intelligence our allies may have, it would decrease the burden on the U.S. troops and taxpayers, and it would take the largely negative spotlight off our own country. As we have seen through our own students’ varying opinions, the American public feels very strongly about going to war—on both the anti-war and pro-war sides. I believe much of the general public—including myself—does not understand the situation in its entirety, whether it is because the government has not disclosed certain information or citizens have not been taking enough interest in the matter or simply because they do not understand the ‘crises’ in the Middle East, and cannot make a truly informed decision. Every citizen has a right to their own opinion, but when making decisions of this caliber, we have to put our faith in the government that we elected to represent us.
hi
ReplyDeleteI believe it is a necessity for the United States to increase the amount of troops in ANY territory where the Islamic State seems to be growing or a threat for multiple reasons. First off, we’ve been looking weak on the international scale when it comes to foreign intervention. There are various examples which include the negotiation with terrorists for the live of an American soldier who fled his post. Three terrorists, whose sole purpose is to ruin the lives of the innocent, were given in return for this man. Although I don’t want to come off as offensive, but if a troop did truly abandon his post what makes his life so valuable? He could have jeopardized the lives of all the other men who stood to fight for their country. Next off is the threat ISIS is posing to not only locals but different international countries. Recently, there was the execution of an American journalist which went viral and shocked the world. To follow that up, the soldiers for the Islamic State are hurting all in there way who don’t agree with their views. After watching a 40 minute video on VICE’s Youtube channel, you could see how much damage is caused from there presence. One town in particular was invaded and multiple people were decapitated with bodies left on the streets so others could see what happens to those who stand in their way. This makes me ask myself if the United States of America should really stand idle and standby while all of these terrible things are happening. Why do we have the most funded military if it won’t be put to the test against a real threat to our society? As a result of this, we MUST send in troops to stop this growing problem. ISIS is like a cancer, if you prevent it from spreading while it’s at an early stage, it will save a lot of problems and a lot of lives in the future. The US shouldn’t be the punching bag of the world where countries could continuously send threats, but rather the police officer that stifles the problems.
ReplyDeleteThe above post was made by Kosta Marcopulos
DeleteI believe that the United States should take an immediate response to this terrorist attack. The innocent life of an American citizen was taken due to a terrorist threat and attack. If saving the lives of innocent American citizen is at stake and at risk I believe that the American government should move quickly and aggressively to reassure us (the people) that nothing like this will happen again.
ReplyDelete