Assignment:
Read the article linked above. Explain whether you agree or disagree with each part of Obama's strategy to combat ISIS and why. Make sure you offer alternatives if you don't agree with the strategy outlined by the President last night.
Email your response to me and then post it below as an anonymous comment.
Minimum: 1 paragraph
The first part of Obama’s Strategy for irradiating ISIS is to add more U.S. forces to Iraq. Despite the fact that 475 more military advisers will be sent into Iraq and Syria to fight against the jihadists (specifically ISIS), Obama claimed that these troops would not be fighting on foreign soil. This means that the troops sent in will mostly be air force personnel, especially in aiding with the airstrikes. This is a very good idea because (1) we are not going into a full war with as many people as we did in the Second Iraqi War, and (2) this should help stop the spread of violence throughout that area of the middle east. Obama also claimed that the U.S. will lead an international coalition to fight ISIS. I am also in support of this decision because it will get many of the countries in the fight against terrorism, and even those in the middle east wanting to irradiate terrorism, to have a part in the matter; this coalition will increase the fighting power against ISIS.
ReplyDeleteMoving forward, Obama also is shifting $25 million in aid for Iraqi Soldiers, mostly to combat the forces of ISIS through the buying of materials. I do not agree with this plan of action, because the last time this happened, it ended up, almost certainly, in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even though this may not happen again, I have the “what if” attitude. Adding to the actions I do not agree with, Obama wishes to train Syrian soldiers to fight against ISIS. Not only do I think this is a dangerous move (because the training could end up in the hands of the extremists), I believe it has moral issues as well. Why is the life of an American worth more than the life of a Syrian? Every man on this planet should have equal opportunity, especially to live, and saying that a Syrian soldier can fight in the place of an American soldier is unethical. Overall, however, Obama has a rather effective and efficient plan against irradiating and destroying ISIS, even though it may take a few years.
According the Obama, it is time to go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria. As he said in his speech on Wednesday night, "That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." He also stated a few different options that America could take to fight back against ISIS. These options are 1. More U.S. forces to Iraq; 2. Degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS; 3. Having Saudi Arabia (and many others) part of the coalition; 4. Expanded military action / "offense"; and 5. Congressional authority to arm and train Syrians. I agree with having more forces going into Iraq because even though 475 more troops will be going to Iraq, these troops will not be fighting on foreign soil. We are going back to areas that we have been before, and with assistance from the air strikes, we can be more prepared in figuring out where to go and where to push the ISIS back to. Degrading and ultimately destroying the ISIS is crucial because the more we aid the Kurdish and Iraqi people fighting against the ISIS, the more they will hopefully be able to fight and push back the ISIS and regain their land. The only thing about this that concerns me is the last time we did this, it backfired on us, leading to one of the most devastating days in the United States. Having Saudi Arabia, along with at least 12 other countries, in the coalition to take down the ISIS is incredible. I support this very much because hopefully with all of these countries against a few terrorist groups, we can lower the risk of any other countries being attacked by these extremists, and decrease terrorism everywhere. I think expanding military action and having an offense in this war going on would be helpful; each country in this coalition should send an equal amount of troops into this war so not one country is putting all of their troops on the line. This way we still have a big force fighting the ISIS from many different places; this offers more arms for this force, more strategies, and even a bigger spending budget. I do not agree with arming and training Syrians because the arms could fall into the wrong hands and yet again backfire on us. I believe that we should help as many people as we can, without putting ourselves in bad position in case any parts of the plan blow up in our faces.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of Obama's tactics in order to destroy ISIS. I agree with his plan to expand air strikes because these air strikes could kill ISIS militants, but also take out a power plant or source of electricity that could weaken ISIS's living conditions. In addition, the plan to find out where ISIS's main source of income and supplies is good because they could possibly stop the supplier of weapons to ISIS. Furthermore, the international coalition is a good idea because if the world's best armed forces work together, they can surely defeat a terrorist organization. However; I disagree with Obama's ideas to arm the Syrians or the Kurds because the Syrians attack Israelis who are America’s ally, so it would essentially be funding Syrians who would later attack our ally. The last time America armed people in a Middle Eastern country, Al- Qaeda was formed, and America regretted this decision. Overall, I agree with the majority of Obama’s policy points, but I have a problem with arming the Syrians.
ReplyDeleteObama’s first strategy mentioned is to send another 475 American military advisors to Iraq, which would raise the total advisors to 1700 people. He mentioned that it will not be a full all out war like had been three years ago, but instead will be used to lead an international coalition to fight ISIS. Also, they will continue to use airstrikes whenever a target is located. His decision to send more American militants to the US will be helpful in my opinion. These forces and troops must be kept safe and out of reach of ISIS in order for this strategy to be effective.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, in order to get the process started, Obama allocated $25 million to Iraqi forces including the northern Kurdish fighters for military aid. This aid will include ammunition, small arms and vehicles, and military education and training. However, he is also going to need militants from other countries part of the coalition. Shifting money over will also be salutary for the Iraqi forces. However, I am a bit skeptical about how useful this money will truly be. With proper training the Iraqi forces will be able to stand up to ISIS forces. At this point, however, backing down will be detrimental to their country and eventually to the US and countries part of the coalition. Therefore, I think that any plan that is implemented should be carried out as effectively as possible.
Also, another strategy is to allow Saudi Arabia and other countries to enter the coalition. I feel that this is the most useful strategy out of all of them. By partnering with other countries and having a larger armed force, trying to destroy ISIS will be more effectual and powerful. ISIS will understand its place and realize that it is up against a larger challenge than just the Middle East.
Obama furthermore asked Congress whether he could arm and train Syrian rebels to fight the ISIS terrorists. This is a risky decision, considering Syria’s own crisis. As was mentioned in the article, this will be harmful to the middle east if the money and weapons supplied by the US gets in the hands of ISIS or other rebel groups. It has been said various times by experts that ISIS poses a bigger threat to America than did al Qaeda because ISIS is so well funded, has huge support, and are better armed and trained. Therefore, I think this is the riskiest decision Obama has made but will still be effective if carried out carefully.
Obama’s decisions on the whole are wise and reasonable. The toughest part now is to implement all these strategies to eventually eliminate ISIS and its threats.
I think that airstrikes against ISIS is smart and by doing that, we can help prevent any more violent actions from this group. Gaining more knowledge about this group would also be beneficial for the U.S. because we can know who is supporting them and how to stop the weed from the root. However I don't believe that America should give the Syrians weapons and train them. Any weapon placed in the wrong hands is likely for a bad outcome. Instead of training the Syrians and supplying them, we ought to support our soldiers more.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with most of President Obama's plan for our country to defeat ISIS in the middle east. He states that America is going to continue to pursue air-strikes as our main attacks. I feel that this is a good idea because we are lessening our chances of lives being lost. But, I also feel that that the possibility of killing innocent civilians could occur during an airstrike. Obama also states that America is no longer going to fight on the ground. He says that he is going to make an effort to shut down terrorists, whether they are attacking the US, or in Syria harming civilians. President Obama says that we have strengthened our troops and forces along the Syrian border, which is helpful in terrorist attacks but it also means that we still have troops on the ground. He states that he is going to continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians, Christians, and also Sunnis and Shiite Muslims. His last statement is that America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners, which I think is overall good, but may come back to harm us in the end if something happens. Building American allies is very important in today's world because of all the conflict and problem in our world.
ReplyDeleteIn Obama's plan to combat ISIS, he makes several points about the path he plans to take. The first part is add more US forces to Iraq. Obama claims in his speech that the soldiers will not be on Iraqi land, so they will be fighting as part of the airstrikes. I agree with this course of action because it is a cautious way to assist in the attack against ISIS, without us getting too directly involved.
ReplyDeleteNext, he talks about following steps to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS. One of these steps was sending aid to Iraqi and Kurdish fighters. I do not agree with this, because the money could fall into the wrong hands and ultimately backfire on us. Instead, Americans should either directly fight the terrorists or find other ways to stop them. Although arming Iraqi and Kurdish forces seems like a good idea on the whole, it may not end as planned.
Also, Obama mentions arming and training Syrian rebels, another part of his plan I disagree with. If ISIS is such a dangerous terrorist group that American soldiers will not be fighting them on land, then why should we train Syrians and send them in to do combat? They have the same risks and their lives should be valued. Instead, we should offer them financial aid and if they choose to fight, then they can.
However, I do agree with using Saudis and other Arab nations to help fight ISIS because if the nations in the surrounding region are on our side, then we have a much better chance of eradicating ISIS or at least inhibiting their growth in terms of power. Overall, I think Obama's plan to combat ISIS has pros and cons but could be very effective if employed correctly and with caution.
The majority of the world is watching as ISIS gains momentum in the Middle East and threatens the safety of people around the world. A few countries, however, have begun to take action. England went into a state of emergency and now Obama has delivered a speech about America’s approach to the issue. For starters, Obama will be increasing the number of military advisers in Iraq to 1,700. Although this is a start, I personally believe that there should be plenty more military advisers in the country. I also believe that America should begin to prepare troops to enter Iraq and Syria in case of war. In addition, Obama called for a coalition between nations to go against ISIS. This is also a positive, however, I believe that there should be a more formal agreement so that in the case of the war the countries would be held responsible to send in their troops. So far ten European countries joined the coalition and Middle Eastern countries are now beginning to join as the days go by. Another plan is to arm and train Syrian rebels to help fight against ISIS. This plan does make me nervous because these soldiers could flea like in Iraq and if this occurs then ISIS will effectively steal large amounts of US supplies that could be used against American soldiers. Overall the rebels could be beneficial to fighting ISIS, however, they are also many negative factors that go along with that part of the plan. A final large part of the plan is airstrikes. The airstrikes have been occurring for a while now and Obama wants to continue them on a larger scale. This is also beneficial, however, the effects are substantial and bombings and larger scale attacks might have a better effect on destroying ISIS. Overall, Obama is moving in the right direction with the statements he made in the speech. I personally believe he is making better decisions now than he has when it came to the Syrian issues a year ago and the issues in Ukraine. Despite this there is still a lot to be done and Obama must become more aggressive in the upcoming weeks if he hopes to slow down and eventually destroy ISIS.
ReplyDeleteOn September 10, 2014, Barack Obama affirmed that he has developed a new plan to "degrade, and ultimately destroy ISIL." To begin, he claims he will send 475 more military advisors to Iraq but will not allow any combat soldiers to fight on Iraqi land. I agree with this idea because these advisors will not be as much at risk as direct combat fighters. These trained officers will be gathering information and working out military strategies wit the Iraqi Army. These people will not be at risk yet will offer indirect help to the ISIS opposition. Next, there will be more arbitrary airstrikes as targets are identified which I believe is a good ongoing tactic. The shorter notice of such attacks allows there to be more unexpected attacks with higher success rates. Third, Obama has provided twenty-five million dollars to the Iraqi forces. This money includes ammunition, weapons, and education. This idea I believe may prove to be counter-productive. ISIS members can easily get ahold of this weaponry and it can be used against us. Also, some of the Iraqi forces are in the periphery of ISIS propaganda and may be swayed to join the terrorists along with their provided artillery. Instead, Iraqi forces should only be provided with education but not too much that can be dangerous if revealed to ISIS. Also, US should proceed with more effective airstrikes. Fourth, there is the growing coalition against ISIS, which is a powerful idea. The more countries will lead to more money and power against ISIS. Finally, Syrian opposition will be provided with arms, which again is dangerous despite the two-year track record of relationships. Again like the Iraqi Army they should only be provided with basic education of fighting that cannot be used against us. Aside from these solutions the US will be giving humanitarian aid to those who need it. Therefore, many of these ideas are effective and if Obama plays his cards correctly ISIS can be broken down.
ReplyDeleteThe best options for the US if it wishes to intervene in fighting ISIS militants are to find the source of ISIS's funding and cut it off and try to form a national coalition, in addition to the already existing air strikes. Finding the source of ISIS's funding and supplies is important because without finding it and cutting it off, ISIS can still resupply its forces, with ammo, artillery and weapons. Although it may take a while, it is our best shot in aiding Iraqi ground forces, besides the air strikes. This is our best option if we do not want to be dragged back into Iraq. This option is best, because once ISIS has run out of ammo and equipment, how will they fight the Iraqi forces? Although they can pick up weapons from fallen enemies, their ammo supply is still limited, and they will not have the firepower to do much against the weaponry of a full blown army.
ReplyDeleteThe second best option is to try to form a coalition. This way the coalition as a whole has the power to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. We can try to persuade countries that border Iraq and Syria to join or risk a hostile invasion by ISIS militants. Also there are many other countries outside the Middle East who would join the fight against these savage militants. Together we could not only overwhelm ISIS in Iraq, but also convince Syria to open its borders and allow foreign countries to enter and aid in ending the reign of ISIS there too.
In Obama’s recent speech about the terrorist group, ISIS, he outlines strategies that he is prepared to take in order to prevent the group from expanding. He plans to send more American forces to Iraq, degrade and destroy ISIS, have Saudi Arabia join the coalition, expand military offense, and to get authority to arm Syrian rebels. I agree with sending more troops to Iraq, especially because they will have the advantage of flight. This will help limit American casualties as they will not be vulnerable to ground attack. I agree with implementing a counterterrorism strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS, as the terrorist group poses a rapidly growing threat to the stability and peace in the world. I agree with Saudi Arabia joining the coalition. Obama stated in his speech that the Saudis have made it clear that they support America’s mission and will join us. Furthermore, the more countries there are that are a part of the coalition, the more strength there is against terrorism threats. ISIS will ultimately be weakened in the shadow of a league of nations. I agree with taking offense in the war. This will lead to us gaining the upper-hand—us calling the shots. We will have more power and influence over what goes on in Iraq. I disagree with arming and training Syrian rebels. The arms could fall into the wrong hands and backfire on us. I believe providing aid to these people is not a bad idea, but we should not do something that could potentially put the United States and our allies in danger.
ReplyDeleteagree with the addition of more military advisers in the areas combating ISIL, the government currently in power is still new, the country was recently overthrown. As such, the military is also in it's early stages, it's difficult to organize such a force within a decade and many, officers and soldiers alike will still need structure. The US advisers, on the other hand, have an established military that trained them and can lend it's leadership to Iraq. Additionally, creating a local coalition that will band together against the common enemy is a wonderful idea, they are local, they know the area and the people that dwell in the region, if anyone can respond effectively and appropriately it's them. Although, for the next step in Obama's plan, arming moderate rebels, is a step completely birthed from arrogance. This has been quite the popular option for the United States before, especially in the Middle East. The only problem: that now there are plenty of terrorist organizations using said supplies against us, we should be providing established countries with the supplies instead. Finally, drone strikes as they are, are far less than desirable. Every year thousands of civilians are killed by drone strikes and are actually aiding in the recruitment of more terrorists. Instead, drone strikes should be limited to attacking only when there is conflict already occurring/ there is no doubt as to who those people are.
ReplyDeleteObama's plan to destroy ISIS consists of expanding airstrikes, building the coalition, expanding military action, and arming and training Syrian rebels. I disagree with the expansion of airstrikes because often they end in the killing of innocent civilians. It may instill fear into ISIS but at what cost? This would go against our goals of helping Iraqi and Syrian civilians and instead killing them. This may be better than full-on war, but what would expanding airstrikes do if they weren't doing anything to begin with? The next part of Obama's plan is to build up the coalition that want to join the fight against ISIS, which I do agree with. Having more global support would ultimately be very helpful in putting an end to terrorism and give us more of a fighting chance against ISIS. The third part of Obama's plan to go offensive on this war could give us a leg up plus we would have support from 12 other countries, however a war so soon after Obama pulled troops from the Middle East could potentially cause some political and social problems in the future. The last part of his plan, arming and training Syrian rebels, I disagree with. The last time America armed and trained rebels, they turned into the Taliban. We caused much more unrest in Afghanistan after leaving it than what was before entering it. Who's to say this kind of rebellion wouldn't happen again? Arming and training rebels would not be a good idea all in all. Obama's strategy to eradicate ISIS could be effective if aspects of his plan were rethought.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with all parts of President Obama’s approach to stop ISIS. Although his ideas to continue airstrikes and avoid sending over United States military are good ideas, a lot of these ideas can backfire. I do agree that airstrikes should continue because they have been successful so far, and they put members of the United States military at little risk. However, arming the Iraqi military with $25 million is not a good idea. In the past, every time we armed people from that region of the world, the people would end up using those weapons to fight against us. Also, ISIS could potentially acquire the weapons from those people and that would make them a stronger force than they previously were. The United States is basically handing off weapons to just about anyone who says that they want to help us in this effort against ISIS. In reality, we do not know who these people are and their true intentions. It is very possible that these people are using us just to get weapons from. I do not believe that we should be getting involved too much. Rebel groups in the Middle East have resentment against Americans trying to control their matters already. Instead of fighting ISIS, we should be rescuing minority groups in the Middle East so that they do not get targeted by ISIS. We need to remove the passports of any rebel connected with ISIS. We can discover which people are involved with ISIS by questioning all people who are traveling to and from that region of the world. Stopping people involved with ISIS in the United States is very important for our own protection.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama has outlined a plan intending to step up military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He announced a rising U.S. military role in a strategy to build an international coalition to support Iraqi ground forces and perhaps other allies. Obama made it clear that he will not hesitate taking action in Syria, stating that, “This is a core principle of my presidency:if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." His strategy to combat ISIS begins by moving another 475 American military advisers into Syria, totaling a number of 1,700. He has repeatedly stated that the strategy will not involve American troops fighting on foreign soil. However, this has yet to be proven. The situation has been escalating since ISIS has been actively spreading throughout the Middle East. By placing advisers on the ground, we are making them a target for ISIS to attack. I believe this may lead Obama to backtrack his statement about zero troops on the ground. The president has announced that America will lead a major coalition to degrade and destroy ISIS through a counter-terrorism strategy. Airstrikes will be launched against targets in Syria, which causes the need for no ground troops. Flying drones and dropping bombs into a specified area allows for greater chance of targeted damage, as well as the lack of troop casualties. This is an important step to take and I believe Obama is right in this aspect. As well, he has shifted funds into training Iraqi forces fighting the ISIS extremists. The aid will include small arms, ammunition, vehicles as well as military training and education. It is important for the country to defend itself against combatants. Help may not always be available to these people. However, it is also possible for these weapons to fall into the hands of the enemy, if taken over by ISIS. The creation of a coalition is the best step for America to take at this time. It is as much our fight as the other countries affected and we need to join together to prevent the growth of ISIS. ISIS poses a serious threat, more so than al-Qaeda, because they are more populated, better armed, better financed, and better experienced. They are also widespread and not contained to a single area. Thousands of supporters are thought to have American passports and are able to travel without suspect. A coalition will have more chance of defeating the enemy. It is a crucial time in deciding our position in this battle and Obama needs to choose our next steps soon.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with President Obama’s plan for eradicating ISIS. It bears too many similarities to Bush’s counter-terrorism plans, which all generally failed. Bush’s plan was to directly attack the enemy – and the expansion of air-strikes on ISIS territory as well as sending several hundred troops overseas is a similar strategy. While these measures may deter the group’s expansion, they will not eliminate it completely. They will be able to resurge even under the military opposition, as they’ve already proven in their response to previous air strikes.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of the plan, arming rebel soldiers, is also a poor choice, because it always holds the risk of allowing American weaponry to fall into the wrong hands. ISIS is notorious for weapon-seizing, and arming coalitions fighting ISIS will only hurt us in the long run.
A better plan would be not to take such immediate and forceful action under political pressure. A more logical approach would be to create a coalition of ISIS enemies (of which there are many) to fight ISIS together. Then we can focus on organizing special operations to save hostages. If the combined efforts of many countries cannot eradicate ISIS, then the USA should take the lead an increase its military presence.
President Obama has formulated a plan for dealing with the terrorist group known as ISIS. His plan, while mostly advantageous to the US, could backfire. Although he does not plan to deploy more troops to Iraq and/or Syria, Obama has still sent 475 American military advisers. Since the US will have no troops in Iraq or Syria, it is safe to assume these advisers will instead train foreign troops to combat the ISIS threat. However, there is a problem with that. By providing militant groups that are against ISIS with training, the US may be making a future terrorist organization stronger. This fear is also replicated when noting the weapons that are being sent to aid the anti-ISIS fighters. Arming rebel soldiers is clearly not the strongest option for the US to take. Instead, Obama should focus on his pursuit to allow for more airstrikes on ISIS. It has been noted in previous skirmishes with ISIS, that the airstrikes were what tipped the balance for the rebels, not just the fact that they have weapons. Obama must stop arming anti-ISIS rebels and instead expand the ISIS territory that will be hit by airstrikes.
ReplyDeleteObama has some pretty good stands on ISIS and I believe everything he has said will help all those people being persecuted and our own well being. The first thing he states is that our objective is to degrade and destroy ISIS. We will begin by expanding air strikes. This will if we get to the point of overwhelming them this could be very good on our side and give us a broader choice of things to choose in this conflict. The second thing given to us would be the addition of 475 more troops.The thing I agree with in this area would be that he emphasizes that we will not be fighting a full on war and this is something most if not all Americans will agree with. In continuation, Obama said we will cut their funding so they will not be able to do their work. This is the part where his plan gets a little iffy because if one considers the amount of different people helping ISIS we begin to sound more hopeful than sure. In addition, I was happy to hear that we will continue with humanitarian assistance considering even though these people have nothing to do with us we care enough to help the innocent civilians being affected by the war.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama's first strategy is to move more forces into Iraq. I think that this strategy could work, because if people who can stop ISIS are there when ISIS is committing their crimes, the process of stopping them could move faster. However, this could lead to fatalities of troops. Obama's second strategy is to "degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS." He wants to plan surprise attacks on ISIS to eventually wipe them out. A possible flaw in this plan would be civilian injuries. Another one of Obama's plan would be to add the Saudis to the coalition. I think this is a good idea because the more countries and people supporting this cause, the more powerful it will become. The next plan would be to go on the offense against ISIS. I think that this is potentially a bad idea because it could lead to more violence. Obama also wants congress to grant him more authority to take action. I think this could lead to faster action whenever the president has an idea about how to stop ISIS. President Obama was also considering arming rebels. I think this is a bad idea because it is what caused this whole situation, and we don't want to repeat mistakes made in the past.
ReplyDeleteThe president set forth several plans and steps he feels is appropriate in addressing the terrorist threats from ISIS. I agree witht the first step of the plan in which America joins forces with several other countries and groups to form a coalition with the intent of destroying ISIS. I also agree with the airstrikes against ISIS. However, I do not support the decision to send more resources in the form of money and men into Iraq or Syria. First, not only is this a dangerous plan because we will be training a group of people who may eventually become our enemy how to fight, but also because there is no guarantee that this plan will prove successful or even that the men will be willing to fight. Also, we cannot afford to shift 25 million dollars into training a different countries army when we have so many more pressing issues that affect the american citizens at home. Instead, I would support the decision to bring in more troops from the coalition and fight the terrorist with our already trained manpower. We need to act fast before more lives are claimed and ISIS is able to spread into surrounding countries. Whether this entails capturing terrorist, running airstrikes, cutting off ISIS funding, or going into combat, we need to act now.
ReplyDeleteObama intends on stepping up his military efforts and plans to hunt down the terrorists who threaten America. He claims it is his "core principal of my presidency; if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." The first part of his strategy is announcing another 475 American military advisors to go to Iraq adding to the 1,200 militants. These troops will "degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy." Although this may work, this goes against Obama's idea of no boots on the soil and has a chance of causing a high amount of casualties. The next part is gaining the support of the Saudis and important Arab partners. This is a good strategy because having inside help will provide useful in completing this mission. Obama has also asked Congress for permission to arm Syrian rebels. In addition, this approval would allow the US to accept funds from other countries that support the Syrian opposition forces. The major argument against this strategy is that the American weapons can easily get in the wrong hands. Lastly, the campaign calls for a more forceful campaign because ISIS is worse and poses more of a threat to the US than Al Qaeda. This is displayed in the quote; "They are more numerous, they are better armed, they are far better financed, they are better experienced, and perhaps most critically there are several thousand of them who hold Western passports, including American passports." Therefore, despite the minor flaws in Obama's strategy, immediate action must be taken against ISIS.
ReplyDeleteObama wants to go to Iraq with a coalition of nations and stop ISIS and get Iraq back. He wants to degrade and destroy ISIS. He wants to do this by providing air support as Iraqi ground forces move on the offensive. He makes a statement saying that if you threaten America you will find no safe haven. Also Obama wants to send more resources in the form of money and men into Iraq or Syria. I disagree with all of Obamas plans because it severely hurts US tax payers. A lot of tax payer dollars will be used for the attacks on ISIS which will not make the American people happy. They rather see their tax payer dollars go to building a better economy or increasing domestic jobs. The amount of tax payer dollars can be determined as so:Obamas plan includes providing 25 million dollars to ISIS occupied countries so the countries can fight for themselves. He says that there will be airstrikes along with this. A standard American Fighter Jet costs about 350 million dollars. Then one must account for the gas it takes for the plane to go from an Air Base in Saudi Arabia to Syria or Iraq. Then comes the bombs dropped by the fighter jet. These bombs cost anywhere from 2,500-1 million each!! And know America and how it wants to show military prowess, one can expect the bombs to cost 1mil each. In a typical air strike 16 bombs are dropped. 8 missiles and 8 bombs. Of course ISIS has anti-air defense weapons. Boom! There goes 350 million dollars worth of metal and 16 million dollars worth of bombs. Oh and the pilot must not be forgotten either. So the planes will get shot down. Then more planes will be sent. Then more planes will get shot down. Then America will have spent billions of dollars on this "war" that taxpayers will be enraged and riots and protests would break out. I suggest sending in covert operatives to take out key ISIS leaders and then make sure that all middle eastern countries have a strong government.
ReplyDeleteOverall, Obama’s plan to defeat ISIS seems effective. Conducting airstrikes at ISIS will harm and kill them and hopefully their stations. Bombing from a plane will also be helpful to oversee the war zone and hunt down terrorists wherever they are, even in Syria and Iraq. Fighting on the ground with many more trained men will certainly support the U.S., however, Obama wants to train and arm not just Americans, but also Syrians and other Middle East countries to fight against ISIS. If training and weapons fall into the wrong hands over there, it could not end up well. Nonetheless, training and arming Americans is a great idea to have more people against ISIS in the Middle East. Additionally, Obama plans to assist displaced civilians. I think this is a great idea because those who are less fortunate and are in the wrong place at the wrong time need help most. By providing food, water, shelter, and other items, their lives can be made that much better while they are waiting for the war to end. Lastly, the overlaying plan of bringing together a broad coalition will be extremely effective, I think; the more countries on America’s side, the better. To carry out this whole plan, the U.S. will need many helping hands and support. With everyone against ISIS, we can bring them down.
ReplyDeleteAs stated by President Obama in his speech from Wednesday night, “It’s time to go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Although he claims, “It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil,” one of Obama’s first announcements was about sending another 475 American military advisors to Iraq. Adding more American military advisors is the first step to developing his strategy. Raising the total of American militants to 1,700 is a step in the right direction. More people means more opportunities to put his strategy into effect and defeat ISIS.
ReplyDeleteThe objective of American militants will be to, “degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.” To assist in destroying ISIS, Obama shifted $25 million in military aid to Iraqi forces. The objective to destroy ISIS is the solution and by aiding Iraqi forces and Kurdish fighters with money and developing targets as necessary, destroying ISIS seems to be a realistic possibility. The next step is to add Saudi Arabia and other nations as part of our coalition. Obama refers to the Saudis as “important Arab partners.” By partnering with other nations, we will have more resources and more people, making us larger and hopefully more powerful than ISIS. In turn, once ISIS sees that many nations are ready to fight against them, maybe they will realize what they are up against and step down or at least reconsider. By speaking to Congress about additional authority to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels to fight the ISIS extremists, President Obama is enforcing his strategy once again. Close monitoring will need to take place once Syrian rebels are armed to make sure the U.S. weapons do not fall in the wrong hands, especially those of ISIS. The best part of his strategy seems to be continuing with airstrikes. So far they have been successful, and hopefully by continuing, defeating ISIS is in our future. Overall, I agree with Obama’s strategy, as long as each part is taken into importance and put into place in a safe matter.
It has been said by Obama that “it’s time to go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” in his speech concerning the ISIS on Wednesday, September 10, 2014. The reason why Obama has involved the United States in the crisis with ISIS is mainly due to the fact that it killed two innocent American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, on foreign soil, and the fact that they threaten America’s national security. In an attempt to fight against ISIS, Obama has devised a plan, in which many options are discussed to battle ISIS. Out of Obama’s proposed plan, the first factor that is mentioned is to move 475 American Military advisers to Iraq, enabling the total population of U.S. personnel to be 1,700. In this part of the plan, Obama clearly stated that the movement of U.S. troops into Iraq would not involve any fighting on foreign soil. In my opinion, I concur to this proposed option; we will not be fighting a war, but we will be supervising the areas where ISIS groups are located. This can be beneficial to the use of airstrikes and to the impending tactics that can be used to restrict ISIS from permeating in other regions. In addition, Obama’s second part of the plan is to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. In this plan, senior administration officials mention that airstrikes will be used against ISIS as we develop targets and find appropriate timing. Therefore, it can be said that in the long term, the United States wants to eradicate ISIS from the world. I agree to this part of the plan because eliminating ISIS would reduce world tensions and consolidate our nation’s security. However, in this option, it also mentions that Obama transferred $25 million dollars to Iraqi forces, specifically to the Kurdish fighters, in military aid such as ammunition, vehicles, military training, military education, and small arms. I disagree of this because there is no need for us to waste a large amount of money to give foreigners (that we do not entirely trust) destructive weapons to fight their own kind in a civil war. In the third proposed option, it includes having Saudi Arabia by our side when fighting against the ISIS. I think this is a great idea because we can have help from a country that is culturally similar to the countries where ISIS is located. Furthermore, the fourth option shows the extension of military operations/offense to fight ISIS. I agree to this idea because extending military action will facilitate the process of suppressing ISIS with the help of other countries that are in coalition to the United States.
ReplyDeleteIt has been said by Obama that “it’s time to go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” in his speech concerning ISIS on Wednesday, September 10, 2014. The reason why Obama has involved the United States in the crisis with ISIS is mainly due to the fact that it killed two innocent American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, on foreign soil; and the fact that they threaten America’s national security. In an attempt to fight against ISIS, Obama has devised a plan, in which many options are discussed to battle ISIS. Out of Obama’s proposed plan, the first factor that is mentioned is to move 475 American Military advisers to Iraq, enabling the total population of U.S. personnel to be 1,700. In this part of the plan, Obama clearly stated that the movement of U.S. troops into Iraq would not involve any fighting on foreign soil. In my opinion, I concur to this proposed option; we will not be fighting a war, but we will be supervising the areas where ISIS groups are located. This can be beneficial to the use of airstrikes and to the impending tactics that can be used to restrict ISIS from permeating in other regions. In addition, Obama’s second part of the plan is to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. In this plan, senior administration officials mention that airstrikes will be used against ISIS as the U.S. develops targets and finds appropriate timing. Therefore, it can be said that in the long term, the United States wants to eradicate ISIS from the world. I agree to this part of the plan because eliminating ISIS would reduce world tensions and consolidate our nation’s security. However, in this option, it also mentions that Obama transferred $25 million dollars to Iraqi forces, specifically to the Kurdish fighters, in military aid such as ammunition, vehicles, military training, military education, and small arms. I disagree of this because there is no need for us to waste a large amount of money to give foreigners (that we do not entirely trust) destructive weapons to fight their own kind in a civil war. We should just let the Kurdish fighters know that we support their actions and let them fight on their own. In the third proposed option, it includes having Saudi Arabia by our side when fighting against the ISIS. I think this is a great idea because we can have help from a country that is culturally similar to the countries where ISIS is located. Furthermore, the fourth option shows the extension of military operations/offense to fight ISIS. I agree to this idea because extending military action will facilitate the process of suppressing ISIS with the help of other countries that are in coalition to the United States. The fifth part of the proposed plan deals with congressional authority to arm Syrian rebels to fight against the ISIS. In my opinion, I do not agree with Obama of arming Syrian rebels with destructive weapons similarly to the idea of arming the Kurdish fighters: the use of the destructive weapons can be misused. Similarly in the sixth part of the plan, it mentions the United States clandestine efforts aid to rebel groups. Once again, we should just let the rebels fight ISIS without our interference. Finally, it has been said that ISIS is more of a threat to us than was Al- Qaeda because they are more in number, better armed, better experienced, and most of the members hold legal passports to enter the United States and other western powers. Hopefully, Obama’s plan is successful against fighting ISIS and not allowing it to threaten our nation.
ReplyDeleteOverall I think that President Obama is lying to himself. Although I do commend him for doing something against ISIS, I believe that he knows deep down that airstrikes will not be enough to even begin to tackles ISIS’s forces. He refuses to get dragged into another war in Iraq, yet he is sending troops over there. And for what? President Obama is sending American soldiers into the ever-dangerous terrorist-occupied Iraq for “humanitarian efforts”. I do think it is good to help out these refugees. However if I was in President Obama’s position, I would recognize that a terrorist organization trying to control two nations (and possibly the entire Middle East), killing American citizens and posing a legitimate threat to our country’s security is a much higher priority than persecuted civilians stranded in the mountains. If Obama is going to mobilize troops, it must be in an effort to cripple ISIS. After tackling ISIS, by all means we can help the refugees, but right now the issue at hand is taking down the terrorists. The lone thing I did like from Obama’s speech was his strategy to cripple ISIS financially. He did not give too much information relating to this, but it is definitely a start. From there, I think it is time for ground war. This is hard to say because I do appreciate all the Armed Forces do for us, and I would hate for American blood to be shed, but I believe it is the best interest of our nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with President Obama’s plan to potentially defeat ISIS. To begin, he talks about increasing airstrikes over Iraq. Obama says we would work with the Iraqi government in order to make sure that we are hitting the right targets. I think it’s a good idea to work with the government because we could potentially hit ISIS groups as well as damage their efforts if we hit a base or land they’ve taken from others because then their supplies/provisions will go down. Also, by increasing support to forces fighting the terrorists on the ground, we can do more damage. By being in the action and in the country-yet it be dangerous- can be beneficial for information by providing military authorities with more support. Another point I agree with Obama on is that we should continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians whom of which have been displaced by ISIS. I agree because it is important to help those who have suffered for no reason, they didn’t do anything ISIS just displaced them and took over their homes/cities. I do not think that we should spend $25 million to train other soldiers though, as I agree we should send in military advisers and help fund those who are willing to help, we cannot spend so much money on training all these people. Including other groups is a great idea and so is training them, but instead we should train small groups while using others as ears on the streets, they do not need to be armed but just report back to officials about rumors or the happenings around them. It could potentially save millions of dollars where we could use elsewhere like aiding those who have been affected or displaced. ISIS has been growing bigger and bigger, so it is about time for us to intervene with the help other countries/groups and defeat them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Obama's plan to combat ISIS. His strategy of slowly degrading the terrorist force while strengthening the government to take its place is sound and stable. By slowly cutting off funding and stemming the flow of soldiers that sympathize with ISIS the force will slowly decommission and eventually fall. By leaving several American personnel in the area and only providing the Iraqi government with what they need we can afford to keep this strategy afloat. With that said, the new government would have no chance of taking over ISIS' role like past governments we have put into place. Other strategies aren't as sound as this, especially those options that include ground soldiers or doing nothing at all. This strategy brings together airstrikes and a coalition to form a very sound strategy with many checks all around, though Obama's statement on not allowing anyone to hide did come off as a bit "war-hawk". Special operations in order to aid those behind enemy lines will continue even as other options are considered and put into place. The international coalition partnered with the UN is the best "governing" system we could ask for over this subject. With several countries spoken for and with everyone working cooperatively there is little chance for error.
ReplyDeleteThe strategy proposed by Obama Wednesday night seems like the best course of action to combat ISIS. By providing military assistance to Iraq and Syria America can help in the effort to stop the terrorist group without engaging in an all out war like in the past. Airstrikes would be the most effective method considering their will be less casualties for American soldiers than if the war was being fought on ‘foreign soil’. Instead of the USA sending resources to the people in Iraq and Syria fighting ISIS, such as weapons or training, America should use our own military to help with the problem. If we do this, it will eliminate the possibility for the same people we tried to help to use the weapons we gave them in the future against America and its allies. If America can successfully stop the growth of ISIS and cut off their funding, the threat of them attacking anymore innocent people will be diminished, so the strategy proposed by Obama is the best option.
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with many of Obama's offensive decisions in order to deal with the new terrorist organization of ISIS. Obama's idea to place airstrikes over much of the ISIS controlled territories a good idea because it can hurt the numbers of ISIS militants as well as take out numerous homes and power sources that can be supplying the ISIS functions with power supplies to communicate. Another good idea he had was to find out and cut off the suppliers of weapons and supplies. This can end up starving the ISIS out of a powerful hold on their territories. This can end up starving many militants and lowering their forces as well as limiting their ammunition and weapons supplies. International coalition is a great idea because it can group the world's powerful countries together and easily eliminate the threat. The one idea I do not agree with is arming the Syrians in particular, the Syrians have many enemies in many United States allies, this could come back to haunt the US later on in life if the Syrians attack the Israelis.
ReplyDeleteObama provides several helpful strategies to negate and demolish ISIS presence in Syria and Iraq. Furthermore, in light of recent executions such as Sotloff and Haines, we must further our resolve in these matters and bring ISIS to justice. That being said, supporting allied ground troops through airstrikes is an effective way for them to gain ground and beat back ISIS. Gaining intelligence and cutting of funding is an effective way to behead the hydra that is ISIS and cauterize it at the same time. Humanitarian assistance is a good way to show the Sunnis, Shias, and other minorities that there is hope on the horizon and that they aren’t alone in this battle. This hope will prevent them from becoming a part of ISIS willingly or unwillingly. After all that is said and done, America should not give away American equipment and other advanced weapons. That equipment should only be for the sole use of American military. I suggest that that equipment be operated only by American personnel, same goes for the advanced weapons. The formation of Al Qaeda was our doing, and we shouldn’t repeat that same mistake again. Other than that, it sounds like a sound plan.
ReplyDeleteThe first part in Obama's plan against the ISIS is to engage in a series of airstrikes. These airstrikes would be coordinated with the Iraqi government so that the strikes are aimed at the correct locations. I support this idea because if the United States works with Iraq on this part of the plan, then the most crucial areas will be targeted in the airstrikes and it reduces the risk of civilian harm. Obama's next portion of the plan is to send 475 more U.S. military advisers to Iraq, but there will be none engaging in combat. Instead, they will help with training, intelligence, and equipment. I agree with this because by keeping our military out of the direct battle, America is still contributing to the Iraqi government's efforts while setting boundaries on how involved we get. Additionally, Obama asks Congress for more resources to help train the Sunni people as they fight for their freedom. Obama also states that he plans to attempt to cut off the ISIS's funding, strengthen defenses, and stop the growth of the ISIS ideology. I believe this is a good part of the plan because by limiting the power that the ISIS has, it will result in less battles and less offensive actions that will need to be taken in the future. Obama's fourth statement is that he will continue to provide assistance to the innocents who have suffered from the war, including Sunni and Shia Muslims, Christians, and other minorities. This is an essential aspect of the plan because it will help stop the minorities from being removed from their homelands. Therefore, I believe in all aspects of Obama's plan against the ISIS.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Obama presents an effective strategy to combat ISIS, however, there are some flaws. I completely agree that we have to eliminate ISIS, and airstrikes will provide an effective means for doing so. In addition, empowering the Iraqis and the Sunnis with knowledge and training can help to maintain some peace and reduce the necessity for external assistance to a certain extent, because the victims will be able to defend themselves. Also, cutting of ISIS's funding will be effective in reducing the power of ISIS if it succeeds; however, it will be difficult to restrict ISIS and prevent it from seizing other regions. It is a great idea to help the innocent civilians because they have fallen victim to ISIS, and it is unjust to leave them alone. It is also extremely prudent to team up with other world powers in this matter because there will be additional support to fall back on.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not agree with "hunting down terrorists wherever they are," in reference to Syria, because although they pose a threat to our nation and the world, it is immoral to encroach on a countries sovereignty because it will create additional tensions. On the other hand, I believe that Obama should rally Syrian government support in his actions, despite how restrictive, damaged, and demanding they are. Also, if we supply them with weapons, they can fall into the wrong hands, so Obama should just help them with training and intelligence. Furthermore, if the United States deploys more troops, it might incite other groups, who do not want foreigners on their Holy Land, to take further terrorist action, so we should not any other troops. Finally, even though this plan might be necessary, it will cost the United States a lot of money, which is not advisable in the current economic state.
In a recent speech, Obama proposed a plan to help aid Iraq in the fight against ISIS. His first solution is to bring more U.S forces to Iraq (through airstrikes). I do believe that this may help the cause as long as troops are not fighting on the ground because that can easily drag us into another war. Another part of Obama’s plan is to give resources and training to Kurdish fighters in Iraq. While this seems like a good idea the last time the US trained and armed civilians in the Middle East it ended with the formation of the Taliban and ultimately the attacks on the US. Not to say that is the case in this situation but there is always the possibility that we are training and arming these people to turn around and fight us. With that part, specifically, we have to be extra cautious of who our resources are going to. Finally Obama claims we are building allies with other countries around Iraq that want to see an end to ISIS. This is a smart idea because, not only, is it good to build allies in any situation but it will help keep American troops off the ground. I think it is great for America to help out another country in need although we do need to keep everyone safe at home, first. Most of Obama’s proposed plan helps to accomplish that and also fight the terrorist organization.
ReplyDeleteObama has three main points to his strategy which attempts to deal with the growing issue of ISIS. The points are to increase the number of airstrikes, form a coalition of middle-eastern countries to combat the situation in ISIS, and to train and supply moderate Syrian rebels as well as to send 175 military advisors to fight ISIS. I agree with Obama's first two strategies because by increasing the number of airstrikes,the U.S. will be able to target strategic points and stop the push of ISIS. Also by forming a coalition, the U.S. will have strong allies in the region that can act of help the U.S. stage operations. I also agree with sending military advisors because this will help the unexperienced Iraq army deal with ISIS. I do not agree however with arming the Syrian rebels because this may inadvertently cause serious issues to national security in the future is the Syrian rebels are given a cause to turn onto the U.S. An alternative suggestion to arming the Syrian rebels would be to send some U.S. ground troops that would largely lead the Iraqi forces. This would not be all out war and the number sent would not be large.
ReplyDeleteThe first part of Obama’s strategy is to send more troops to Iraq. These troops would not be there to fight another war, but to assist with supplies and training to the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. A total of 475 American military advisors will be sent to Iraq. They will also help Sunni Muslims to escape the violence that ISIS is committing toward them. I think this plan is an excellent one. Prior to the ISIS terrorism situation, I supported Obama when he started to withdraw some of the troops. Now, however, I think they are needed to help defeat ISIS and to keep America, along with other innocent civilians, out of harm’s way. I also agree with Obama’s plan to expand air strikes. It will lower the violence that ISIS is committing. All in all, I feel that Obama’s plans are well thought out. There really are not a lot of options when trying to deal with such a powerful terrorist group.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I agree with the strategies outlined by President Obama to combat ISIS. (1) By conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIS the United States will secure not only its own people in the Middle East but also its allies who have joined in the fight against ISIS as well. Furthermore the United States will send a clear message to ISIS that it will not tolerate terrorism in any part of the world. (2) Additionally, the United States doesn’t need to directly engage in another ground war on Iraqi soil so if it can find other ways to support anti-ISIS forces that would be just as effective. This would also aid in the Syrian opposition against Assad’s regime, therefore bringing more stability to the Middle East. (3) Also, The United States can’t undermine ISIS on its own so by working with the international community it will have the resources, “ to cut off . . . [ISIS’s] funding, improve . . . intelligence, strengthen . . . defenses, counter . . . [ISIS’s] . . . warped ideology, and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.” (4) Finally, the goal of the war against ISIS is to establish lasting peace between the different ethnic and religious groups so it is essential that the United States provides humanitarian support for innocent civilians. In conclusion, I agree with the strategies put forward by President Obama to eliminate ISIS because they are practical and appropriate.
ReplyDeleteIn the speech regarding ISIS in Iraq and Syria, President Obama has issued many strategies that the US will implement to stop ISIS. The strategies he mentions are sending 475 US military servicemen to Iraq, degrading and destroying ISIS through comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategies, continuing airstrikes against the terrorists, arming and training Syrian soldiers and starting a coalition against ISIS with other nations. I agree with the strategy of creating a national coalition. This will be beneficial to having more supplies and essentials to destroying ISIS. The more people we have on our side, the better it will be to stop ISIS. I also agree with degrading and destroying ISIS through cutting their funds and other tactics. This stops ISIS from the root of their destruction and allows for them to become weak in time for the US to strike. Finally, I agree with sending the US troops to Iraq. It is not a large number so the even if attacks were to happen on US military, it would not be so detrimental to the US’ forces. On the other hand, it will trigger more enragement of the US. However, I do not agree with continuing airstrikes and training Syrian soldiers. Airstrikes are inaccurate considering they can harm so many innocent people. This defeats the purpose of the US trying to help people in Iraq. By training Syrian soldiers, it leaves a wide range of possibilities that can harm the US in the end. Nobody knows the motives of these soldiers, and we could potentially be training another terrorist group.
ReplyDeleteObama has proposed a plan to increase and continue air strikes against ISIS in the Middle East. I completely agree with him. His idea to only implement air strikes will help to reduce the budget of this unsettled war and it will also keep many Americans out of the Middle East where they risk never seeing their families again. I believe the war in Iraq taught us many lessons that we need to apply to this war on terrorism. There are countless similarities between these two horrific events. In my opinion, Obama's choice was one of his better ones. If our country can aid in suppressing the terror caused by ISIS without actually putting troops on the ground, that would be ideal for us.
ReplyDeleteObama’s statement, “If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven” must be proven a fact. I agree that forming an international coalition against terrorism is effective, because it unites countries against a common enemy. With an international coalition, other countries can take up an equal or greater responsibility to aid minority populations and provide humanitarian efforts, for instance. If countries delegate tasks and strategize a plan to destroy ISIS, we can eliminate the threat faster and with less financial burden. Additionally, we can establish a precedent for eliminating terrorism on an international level.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, eliminating terrorism is no easy job. I think the US should continue with air strikes, because they have been effective in tipping the balance in favor of the Kurdish and other groups fighting ISIS. However, like many others, I am skeptical of arming and training rebel Syrian forces. Also, I do not agree with sending $25 million in military aid to Iraqi forces, partly because it undermines their humanity, but also because it’s risky maneuver. ISIS is well-financed. Former US ambassador Ryan Crocker even stated that there are thousands of terrorists who hold American passports. Just as the air strikes tipped the balance against the terrorists, funding can tip the balance in favor of them. The money can easily end up in the wrong hands, especially Syrian-United States relations have been severed to begin with. Although US officials may be more confident this time around, I do not believe that provides enough assurance that the money will not be used against us.
What I do think we should do is cut off ISIS’s funding covertly. US military advisers and the CIA can gain more intelligence on ISIS and learn how the group is operated. Not only can we stop the organization from expanding, but we can also gather information on how these organizations are run and therefore be better prepared for this type of situation in the future. Cutting off ISIS’s funding is bereaving it of its life source. In contrast, the money that’s funding rebel troops can easily metamorphose to a fuel for ISIS. To extinguish the fire, we should deprive it of its oxygen, not feed it more flames.
If establishing an international coalition, cutting off ISIS’s funding, and continuing the air strikes all fail, then I think the US should wage war. Although this may seen contradictory to saving money, it’s less risky than giving money to other rebel groups and training them to fight. Also, we can ensure that the main constituents of ISIS do not stick around to form yet another terrorist organization, just as a few from al-Qaeda helped form ISIS. For right now, however, I agree with Obama that American combat troops should not fight on foreign soil. War should be used as a last resort.
President Obama begins his strategy to eradicate ISIS with the point of sending more U.S. forces to Iraq. Obama states that this will not be a full war, as it was about three years ago, but rather this opportunity will be used to lead an international coalition to put an ultimate end to ISIS. In my opinion, I think his decision to send over more troops will benefit our side. Another point Obama made in his speech concerning strategies to take down ISIS, was that air strikes could be used to ambush the terrorist group. However, I disagree with this particular option. Unfortunately, with air strikes, comes massive risk factors. What assures us that there aerial attacks will target ISIS specifically? There is still a very large chance that civilians will be greatly affected by these strikes. Lastly, Obama also wants to help the displaced civilians affected by ISIS. Giving food, water, shelter, and other items, displaced victims affected by ISIS can live better quality lives.
ReplyDeleteObama's plan consists of four major parts. Coordinated airstrikes, support middle eastern troops fighting ISIL, increase counter terrorism/ cut off funding of ISIL, and continue to assist the civilians affected by ISIL. Obama made several other points, America will fight ISIL not just in Iraq but across the middle east including Syria, America will not get dragged into another ground war, the Al-Assad regime is not to be trusted, and that congress needs to support him and the country more in this fight against ISIL (more resources/money). I like Obama's plan overall, it is extensive and avoids the major pitfall of the first Iraq war which was the ground war. However the execution needs to be accurate and each part of the plan must be carried out simultaneously for it to be effective and we must be wary of the foreign troops we are supporting. If America backs the wrong people it could backfire and wind up causing even more fighting in the future. America must also must try its best to not alienate or entice any civilians into becoming future members of ISIL or other terrorists groups.
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama stated that the United States will begin to attack ISIS with airstrikes. The United States will be working with the Iraqi government so that not only will Americans be protected but the Iraqi nation as well.The United States will attack ISIS on the ground as well, and in Syria as well. Lastly, the United States will do whatever it takes to prevent ISIS attacks. I agree with all of Obama's plan to attack and defeat ISIS. The airstrikes will weaken ISIS without hurting innocent people. Then, the United States working with the Iraq government makes sure that we are not getting into a war with the entire country of Iraq, but assisting it in a time of crisis. The United States also said that they would put 475 troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq. These troops are not there to fight a war, but to fight against ISIS and save the people that ISIS has captured. I think this is a great idea because this will help save some of the people that ISIS has captured and eliminate some of ISIS as well. At the end of his speech, Obama says that the United States will do whatever it take to prevent ISIS attacks, which is what we should be doing as a nation due to the effects that ISIS has had on America after what they did to the American journalists.
ReplyDeleteObama is approaching this wearily. He knows that the troubled Middle East is a lot like both the Mafia in that whenever you think you're out, they pull you back in. Almost no one wants a war in the Middle East on some country they couldn't find on a map, AGAIN. But Obama's laid out a plan that seems to both distance us and bring us closer. Yes theres an offense, but it's a passive one. Yes were doing airstrikes, but theyre done via drones. Yes were sending more troops, but they are not 'fighting' We're providing aid and armaments to people of dubious reliability. Yes they're being descriminated and in some cases genocided, but we dont know they wont do the same. The idea of arming more radical rebellion groups just feels painful ever since Operation Cyclone. The Middle East feels like a power vacuum, with the loss of every tyrant splintering terrorists cells everywhere, killing because your god isnt my god exact. But there are other downsides too. We plan on degrading a force motivated by religion. Pushed by blind faith. Zealotry is almost impossible to counter, as Machiavelli pointed out there is no stronger motivator than God or Country. Even the airstrikes will not help. They know where to hide, they know the lay of the land, they know what we dont. It feels very reminiscent of the Vietnam 'conflict'; no one wants to call it a war, we dont want to admit were being outwitted, and we dont want to admit we just arent quite sure what to do. Foxholes are caves and once again the locals are split on who to support. No one wants to get into a fight with so much war just barely behind us, but we just keep getting pulled in, in the name of global policing. I feel like we shouldnt be even attempting an offense but to protect America first. We dont want to admit we have no right to be doing this policing, and should be putting our homeland defense at the forefront of our policies. In the end accepting other muslims to fight in the coalition against ISIS is a good mental and stratigic blow. In the end, I feel we are rushing in once again, and may just want to take a little more time to say a lot more duress. Spend less time hopping in and more time testing the waters. I find Obamas plan to be good, but superfluous and too outside-oriented.
ReplyDeleteThe first strategy that Obama said would be implemented was the import of 475 US military advisors to Iraq. He also mentioned that we would continue to fire more airstrikes to weaken and disable ISIS. He was sure to clarify that the 475 advisors were not in any way associated to setting war grounds. He guaranteed that a war would not take a place in Iraq as it had years ago. Instead, the advisors are being sent there to lead an international coalition in order to fight ISIS from the middle east. Although sending more militants into Iraq in order to train Iraqi fighters rather than American troops seems like a good idea, I’m a little wary on the whole strategy. Looking back at history, a similar technique resulted in the formation of the Al-Queda terrorist group. However, at the moment, it seems like a good idea to send in militant advisors to turn Iraq’s fighters into soldiers.
ReplyDeleteObama also stated that 25 million dollars would be sent to Iraqi forces for military aid. By military aid, he means training, ammunition, vehicles, transport, camp necessities, etc. Although unsure how effective the Iraqi troops will be for the cause, I believe that with proper training and adequate supply of arms, they have a chance against ISIS.
In addition, he also mentioned bringing Saudi Arabia into the coalition. I feel this is a great idea because forming more allies and assistance is just bringing us one step closer to destroying ISIS.
Lastly, however, he proposed a strategy that I have mixed feelings about. He stated that with the permission of Congress, the US would train and arm Syrian rebels to fight alongside the Iraqis against ISIS. Although the cause is noble, I am skeptical of this decision due to Syria’s own crisis. I do not know whether it is the best idea to bring a country into the coalition and to supply them with money, arms, and ammo when they are in a fragile state as it is. However, I respect Obama’s decision and believe that in his position, he made the best decisions and proposed the most efficient strategies. Fighting ISIS is going to be a far greater challenge than with Al Queda due to their higher funding, support, and training. For this reason, Obama must act wisely but I trust he is making logical choices with what he has.
There is something of an unfortunate truth that I have, reading through this article, come to realize: The United States is the biggest and maybe only superpower today. Personally, I do not support the "War on Terror", I do not support many of the policies enacted in the wake of 9/11, and I do not condone military action in Iraq. I actively dislike how powerful the nation I live in has become. President Obama seems to relish this prominence, basking in America's leadership, and stating that "anyone who threatens America will find no safe haven". But who will ISIS threaten if not the USA? There is literally nobody on par with us, nobody else to threaten. People can threaten Germany and find safe haven. People can threaten Iraq and find safe haven in America. But nobody threatens the United States, that is something Barack Obama has made explicitly clear.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's terrifying. The article talks of multiple instances of Obama seeking special administrative powers. In particular, that he had been granted some overarching executive powers. To me, there seems to be only one place this military intervention can go: To war in Iraq, to embroilment forever in the events of the Middle East, and to potential gross abuses of power by the President and by Congress.
Don't get me wrong. ISIS is an abomination and must be stopped. Airstrikes were desperately needed during the siege of Mount Sinjar, and when news came of the breaking of the siege I said "thank god" out loud. But the thing is, it's always the United States. We have our nation so finely tuned and trained that we leap into a panicked frenzy at any mention of terrorism, at any name beginning with "Al-" or containing a "Muhammad", at any mention of the Quran, Iraq, or a Kalishnikov rifle. This frenzy of terror about terror can and has historically lead to only one thing: war. And yes, military movements can do good things, but that doesn't make them innately positive.
I suppose I support intervention, but wish it would come under more stable, civil, level-headed and understanding domestic circumstances, and can only hope that in fifteen years, we look back at this week and say "Thank God".
In a recent speech, President Obama discussed his strategy in order to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIL. The main strategies that Obama stated are to expand the use of airstrikes on the ISIL targets, supply weapons and military training to the Kurdish and Iraqi fighters, bring 475 American military advisors to Iraq, and to create truces between other Middle East countries in order to fight ISIL. I support the idea of continuing airstrikes on the ISIL targets because they seem to be very successful in removing ISIL militants and reducing the group’s living conditions. Overall, it is a very efficient tactic compared to fighting on the ground. Second, I do not agree with the strategy of giving aid to the Kurdish and Iraqi fighters, because there could be a high chance that this aid could fall into the wrong hands. Third, I support the idea of bringing in 475 American military advisors to Iraq, because they will support the newly formed Iraqi government and create a international coalition, and will not be involved in any battles. Overall, I think most of the strategies that Obama has developed will be successful in combating ISIL, except for the giving aid to the Kurdish and Iraqi fighters, because it will be a risky decision that may not end out well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of Obama's plan to ultimately destroy ISIS. I think many of these steps are risky and can easily escalate our involvement in the situation, but they are needed in order to deal with the threat of ISIS. The two major examples of this are sending 475 additional military advisers to the region and increasing our funding and support to Iraqi and Kurdish forces. I think that we have no other option but to send additional military advisers, but if we keep putting advisers in the region then eventually there wont be much of a difference between sending advisers and sending troops. Even though Obama made it clear that these advisers will not take on a combat role I still think this could easily turn into a slippery slope situation. Also, I think that giving additional support to Iraqi and Kurdish forces is necessary if we are not going to put any of our troops on the ground in Iraq. We must be careful in giving them these supplies because of the chance of another Taliban type group arising. Although I do not agree with the president being able to issue airstrikes without an official declaration of war, I think that in this situation the airstrikes are necessary. The airstrikes do carry the risk of civilian casualties and it is for this reason that they will have to be more careful with where they are bombing.
ReplyDeleteThe plan Obama proposed is a repeat of past performances. You start with the air strikes to destroy military bases, communications, defense installations etc. However, this is not an army, these are guerrilla street fighters. What I believe will happen that those leading the airstrikes will soon see, is that ISIS will use unethical tactics to protect themselves. I will not be suprised when ISIS members start parading around with human shields. Here plays the next point of the plan, support the troops of Iraq and Syria. Iraqi troops have potential, however, they do not have the systematic leadership they need to be organized enough to sustain warfare. Eventually, Iraqi troops may succumb to the demoralization of ISIS and use unethical strategies. Then what have we accomplished? We took out one monstrosity by introducing another. On the topic of Syrian troops. We KNOW that they have used unethical and illegal tactics in the past. In the Syrian civil war, chemicals were used by both sides. Supporting this army is as risky of a gamble as it gets. What needs to be done is to form a coalition of troops, not for airstrikes. Sure a coalition is nice to bully countries into cutting funding to ISIS but beyond that what is it going to do? Divy up the cost of a Hellstorm missile? Unfortunately, we need troops, ground troops. Not just any ground troops. Ground troops from around the world. What we see happening in the Middle East is a collective focus point for fighters to meet up. The countries of the world need to do the same and supply a task force each to fight on the ground.The Iraqi and Syrian armies are not enough by themselves to fend off a trained Guerrilla army like ISIS.
ReplyDeleteI am very torn about how I feel towards Obama's strategy to take down ISIS. There is a chance that these plans can backfire just as they have in similar attempts. Though I am not completely against sending more US military forces to Iraq since they need all the help they can get, I do believe that it will potentially lead to another war if there are too many people, which is by far the last thing we need. Having the Saudis support this plan will definitely play a helpful role, showing that the US has their permission to carry out the strategy and has more people to work along side with. Someone pointed out to me that the last time the US distributed weapons to foreign forces, people broke off and began their own fighting group known as the Taliban. As long as the distribution of weapons is not placed into the wrong hands and the government is more cautious, I think this mistake can be avoided. However, there are still some points that I am against, one including the airstrikes. I believe that they will do more harm than solve any problem since they are not always easy to control and risk many innocent civilizations' lives. I also do not entirely approve of the US being on the offensive side of the battle. Even though this country has reached the point where they have to attack first, I am still do not believe in using violence against violence because in the end, so many lives will be altered or lost. What I don't understand is why more countries aren't getting involved but the US feels the need to take care of everything. If ISIS proves to be a threat to the entire world, shouldn't more countries be worried too? Yes, ISIS must be stopped, I just wish there could be a better way.
ReplyDeleteAs the Isis situation in Syria has rapidly begun to accumulate in violence, Obama has officially released a statement, indicating an airstrike on Syria in order to "degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL." Overall, his strategy for these military efforts against ISIS include airstrikes, a buildup of coalition, and training and arming of the Kurds, or Syrian rebels. Personally, I do not entirely agree with the partial concept of this strategy. Undoubtedly, this plan bears few too many similarities to the Bush administration's plans to intervene in Iraq, which clearly failed. Additionally, aiding Syrian rebels and the Iraqi army is an almost ignorant move to make. In the past, the United States has aided supposed opposition to the problem at stake, yet this has continued to backfire on this country every single time. With the prevalence of terrorist groups in Iraq, the ammunition being supplied to the army can quickly be intercepted into the hands of those who could cause much damage. On the other hand, I do agree with Obama's ideas of increased military advisers in Iraq to almost 1700. I believe that this strategy is a cautious approach, as it does not get the United States fully and solely involved in the situation at hand. Though Obama's strategies are fairly beneficial to the US, I do believe that an even more effective option would be to order a coup against the ISIS organization, or the country. If funding for this terrorist group is cut off, ISIS will be at a vulnerable stage, where the United States and its allies could form a national coalition. I see it as very important that ISIS is cut off from all funding, as the money that is being supplied can easily be used to supply each member of this terrorist group with weapons and ammunition, making it all the more harder for this group to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteObama has made it clear to America that we must take action against the efforts of ISIS which is committing more murders, and displacing more families every day. His plan is to attack ISIS from many different angles in order to prevent and dissolve more threats. I agree with this plan, and think that by following through with this outline we will fulfill our moral duty to protect innocent civilians, and protecting our own nation without risking too much. Airstrikes will attack ISIS without putting more American soldiers at risk of being killed, or even captured. Increasing the soldiers on location is also a risk we must take as a nation to ensure the threat of ISIS has been taken care of. Assisting the Iraqi soldiers, and other soldiers that have volunteered by offering training and supplies is a good way to provide support to the country, while also allowing it to still be slightly independent. Cutting ISIS off at its sources is also a way to make them more vulnerable to the forces fighting against it. Without funding the group will no longer be able to support its members with weapons, let alone food and water. Strengthening defense will also assist the families being displaced, by preventing attacks in areas we can. Finally, providing assistance is the most important factor of helping the people in danger. Many families are suffering from the attacks of ISIS through suffering loss, or being displaced and chased from their homes. Providing food, water, and protection to them is important to fulfill the moral position our country is in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost all of Obama’s strategies for combating ISIS, but each has a downside. Obama said in his speech that he plans to continue to send airstrikes to Syria. I understand that they are helping but how can we be sure that every life that is taken, is one that deserves to be. Can we be sure that no innocent citizens will be killed in the process? With soldiers on the ground at least they could see the person they are shooting, blindly bombing cannot be the reasonable option. Another plan I disagree with is the idea of arming Syrians. How could that be a good idea? Is that not the exact thing that we did with Al Queda? How did that work out? I feel like there is a right way to go about this but so far, we have not found the solution.
ReplyDeleteI think that Obama’s strategy is well thought out. Helping train rebel soldiers as well as keeping ISIS in the Middle East are both productive ways of defeating ISIS. I also like how we are still sending in help to the victims of ISIS by helping them escape as well as dropping them supplies. I think more, less violent tactics can be implemented such as cutting off the funding of ISIS. That would definitely slow down ISIS. I wish there was a way to aid in the crisis without casualties and violence, however it doesn’t seem like there will be any other way to keep more people from being driven out and killed.
ReplyDeleteIn Obama’s speech he puts out a plan to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the ISIS. He explained his strategy through a series of important points, including, airstrikes, more US forces sent over, to arm and train Syrian rebels, and having Saudi’s and other countries’s support in the alliance. I don’t agree with this strategy at all.I don’t think we should intervene in general, but if we have to this isn’t a good option. To start, airstrikes are a good way to prevent sending down troops, but Obama clearly stated that he was going to send down even more Americans to get killed, then the airstrikes are not only not needed, but they’ll cause even more problems. The problem with airstrikes is that they kill everything in it’s path, especially innocent civilians; and, massacres like that is what’ll lead more people against us. Next, sending down more troops is an exact repeat of what happened in Vietnam. We just sent more and more troops for a war that we never had to have been involved in; yet, hundreds of Americans lost their lives due to it. Lastly getting the authority from Congress to arm and train Syrian rebels to fight the ISIS might seem like a good idea, but it’s really not. Arming a rebel group to fight is exactly what we did with what later became Al-Qaeda. It might seem like a good idea so that we dont put our citizens’ lives at risk by sending them over, or it might also be a better idea than sending planes to bomb random people, but since we’re already doing both of those, there’s really no point in arming a rebel group. Out of this whole strategy the only point I agreed with was the one about trying to get other countries support to create a uniformed alliance to take the ISIS together. This way it would take less time, less American dollars, and less American lives if several countries would collaborate to take the ISIS head on. The ISIS against America will be a hard and long war, but the ISIS vs. a giant alliance would be a quicker and better defeat. So overall, I do not agree with Obama’s strategy and I don’t believe we should go to war with the ISIS without the alliance of several other countries.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, the first strategy Obama has established to bring down ISIS is to send more US forces to Iraq. Although there are going to be 475 more military personnel to be sent more to fight against them and their "followers"not on foreign grounds, how are we to say that they do not have a change of plans and send all of the new troops out their world. In the end, we can not be certain that our military will be in a safer environment. This is why I believe that it is not a good idea to send out more troops into the unknown.
ReplyDeleteTo continue, another strategy he added was that the US could lead an international coalition. I believe this is a good idea because it will bring our countries together and help stop ISIS. This could also help destroy other terrorist groups. We will be able to gain more strength in bringing down ISIS and terrorism in Iraq.
Finally, Obama's last strategy in destroying ISIS is using more money to help the Iraqi soldiers, such as their weapons. I believe that this is a good idea because it could help us get the upper hand with our fighting tactics and the more vicious weapon choice that could now be affordable. This could also prevent a long war and end with small causalities.
Obama's plan for ISIS announced on Thursday September 10, 2014 certainly had its high points and low points. The four points made in the plan were, airstrike against the terrorists, increase support for the forces, use counter terrorism capabilities, and provide humanitarian assistance to those in need. All of these points made were reasonable and well thought out. I do agree with all of them.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, airstrikes will be efficient in keeping an eye on the terrorists as well as strategically attacking the areas known to house these people. Very few innocent lives will be in danger by doing this. While there are people patrolling the sky they will know exactly where to bomb without harming an innocent town of Syria and Iraq. This will also ensure that any person or group that threatens the country will be found and acted on appropriately.
Furthermore, increasing our support to forces fighting on the ground will be beneficial to not only the people of the country but also the troops that are already there. The troops will help to properly equip and train these people to fight on their own. However, putting our troops on foreign soil may cause problems or put the soldiers lives at risk.
Moreover, drawing on substantial counter terrorism capabilities will help improve everything this country already has. The weapons will be better, the funding, the training will also be better. This can only cause positive outcomes. The people will be better trained, the soldiers will be better equipped and soon the international community will be mobilized around this effort to add to the counter terrorism capabilities
Finally, the fourth point, and possibly the best, was provide humanitarian assistance to innocent citizens of these countries. This will assure the people there that we are on their side and are fighting for them. It will show them they have people to trust that are there to protect them, since no one else is. Obama also said the Sunni's and Shia's can not be driven from their homelands which is a major effect of all of the terrorism taking place.
To conclude, Obama's points were valid and are strongly supported by many. This plan has the potential to be one of the most successful plans regarding terrorism this world has seen.
During Obamas speech, he made four points about what the US is going to do about ISIS. The best part of his plan, in my opinion, was creating a coalition to fight back against ISIS. Saudi Arabia and other countries have already pledged to support the US in taking down ISIS. A more united front against a common enemy will mean that it will be easier to stop ISIS. We will all be fighting with the same goal in mind. Obama has also said that he is going to send in more troops, over 400, and money for supplies to the Iraqi government. The US servicemen will only be there to train soldiers that will help in the ground fighting against ISIS. This will give needed support to Iraq but also it will allow them to fight on their own, to work things out how they want too. We will back them but the win will be theirs. He also wants to be able to train syrian soldiers as well. I think this is beneficial because capable soldiers will be in the area where the enemy is. A confusing point Obama made in his speech though was that the US was going to perform airstrikes on ISIS. This sounds as if we are at war. I think this would aggravate not only ISIS but surrounding nations and people who would then take out their frustration on the US.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama's first strategy is to send more U.S. forces into the area to act as military advisors, rather than soldiers being there to fight another war. I don't mind the idea of sending people there to help give advice or offer assistance to those who are willing to fight against ISIS, but I don't agree with the possibility of more troops being sent over as it could be seen as a hostile move. Another one of his strategies is to work with the Iraqi government to carry out airstrikes against ISIS. I don't agree with this method as much because it sounds a lot like we're starting another war, only we're trying to avoid being on the ground while we do it. Not that it would be better on the ground, but airstrikes obliterate everything in their path, so we cannot out rule civilian casualties or damages to valuable resources for Iraqi people. Personally I agree with Obama's choice to shift $25 million into military aid for Iraq. I don't believe that this is our fight to fight just yet, despite the potential threat to the U.S. and other countries, and I think that providing Iraq with the supplies and opportunity to defend themselves against ISIS is a good move for us.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOn Wednesday September 10th, Barack Obama made a public speech about his plans on how to deal with the terrorist group ISIS. This plan consisted of four main parts. These parts being, conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes with the support of Iraqi government and forces, increase ground support in the fight against ISIS by sending in 457 service members, finding and destroying ISIS’s sources of income and supplies, and to increase humanitarian aid to those affected by ISIS’s actions. I agree with Obama’s choices of action, and home that they prevail in the fight against ISIS.
Sending in air strikes with the guidance of Iraqi government will allow a more accurate dropping of bombs on ISIS camps. Also,this will allow Iraqi ground forces to advance and push back ISIS from previously gained territory. The airstrikes will also allow more ISIS members to be destroyed, thus lessening the amount of people in the group, and slowly working towards the “demolition” of ISIS.
Increasing the ground support with the extra 457 service members will increase the amount of counterintelligence on the Iraqi soldier’s side. These servicemen will be able to provide the proper insight, technology, and strategy to help the Iraqi soldiers conquer ISIS. Not only will this lead to the ultimate demolition of ISIS, but it will also “bring present attacks to a halt and prevent future advances from taking place.”
Finding and “destroying” ISIS’s main sources of income and support is the ideal way to stop the spread and “kill off” the group. Like when the nucleus of a cell is destroyed, the cell becomes weak and eventually dies off. Stopping support and supplies from reaching ISIS will cripple the group and weaken them to the point where they will crumble under the vast amount of pressure being placed on them with Obama’s other strategies.
Finally, although it doesn’t help with the “demolition” of ISIS, Obama want to give aid out to those who have been victims of ISIS’s heinous acts. This includes giving out humanitarian aid to targeted minorities such as the Sunni Muslims. This will allow Iraq and other affected areas to rebuild themselves and survive after the conquering of ISIS.
ISIS has been described as being worse than Al Qaeda. This poses a huge threat not only to the US, but practically all middle eastern countries as well. If Obama’s plan is a success, one more unnecessary evil will be taken out of the world, and thousands of lives will be saved from future ISIS advances.
President Obama proposed a four part strategy for dealing with ISIS, or ISIL, in the Middle East. His overall goal is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. His first plan of action is to continue airstrikes. The airstrikes are proving somewhat effective by giving the Kurdish and other groups more time to prepare for fighting back ISIS. However, US airstrikes in Syria without the permission of the Syrian Government could be considered an act of war, and I don’t believe war should be started unless necessary. Second, Obama recommended to increase support to forces fighting ISIS. He wants to send in an extra 475 service members to help Iraqi forces. They need help training, our intelligence, and our equipment to fight back. Also, I find it crucial that he clarified that the service members are only going to aid the forces and not go into combat with them. Unfortunately, arming the Iraqi soldiers could possibly lead to ISIS stealing the weaponry. The last thing the US and Middle East needs is for ISIS to get a hand on more deadly weapons. Third, Obama suggested we draw on counter terrorism capabilities to prevent attack. If we can improve our intelligence on where the funding comes from for ISIS and find a way to limit or cut it, it will be nearly impossible for ISIS to continue spreading to other places. Fourth, the US should continue to provide innocent people with humanitarian assistance. Some innocent people include the Sunni and Shia Muslims, Catholics, and other religious minorities. I agree with helping out these unfortunate people who are stuck in this crisis, however, the US has to be careful with how much money we donate towards them. The faster we end this crisis, the easier the lives of the innocent will become and the less money we have to spend assisting them.
ReplyDeleteObama has made it clear that he will attack ISIS in Syria or Iraq to protect America if need be. “This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” I think it’s important that Americans understand we can fight and defend ourselves. Hopefully, the US will be joined by a broad coalition of partners to help take down ISIS. The more international help we can get, the easier and faster the takedown of ISIS will be. The hardest part is now implementing the strategies to obtain our overall goal of demolishing ISIS.
Obama's plan for ISIS or "ISIL" as he expressed, has four parts.The first part is that the U.S. will continue airstrikes to ISIS in Iraq, working with the Iraqi government to target ISIS alone. Obama also stated that he is for attacking ISIS in Syria as well as well as Iraq because they are threatening the U.S. and he will not allow it. The second part of his plan is to add more support to the Iraqi security forces on land. Today, there are already a few hundred service members on the ground to support the Iraqi forces against ISIS, and he plans to add 475 more service members in Iraq. He states that their missions are non-combative, a reassures America that we are not entering another war in Iraq; they just need more "supporters" for the Iraqi security forces for purposes of training, intelligence, equipment, and aiding Iraqi officials to keep Sunni's safe from ISIS. He believes that with such an extremist group the only solution is to counter balance by strengthening the opposition with training and equipment. The third part of his plan is to utilize our allies to cut off funding for ISIS, and mobilize the international community around this effort. Lastly, the final part to Obama's plan is to continue to provide humanitarian efforts to help and protect the people of the area of all majorities and minorities; Sunnis, Shias, Christians, and other religious minority groups. Obama does not want to see more people leaving their religious homeland.
ReplyDeleteI agree with part of Obama's plan, yet disagree with others. I agree with continuing airstrikes, mobilizing the international community against this issue and cutting off funding for ISIS, and continuing humanitarian services for all groups of people affected by ISIS. However, I do not agree with the service members already on the ground and adding 475 more. I feel that although their missions are not combative, there presence is still evident and seen as a threat by ISIS, furthering the U.S. a target, and overall is just a dumb situation to put more American on the ground in such a high-risk state. This is the beginnings to a full- blown combative war on the ground in Iraq, which is the last thing America or Iraq wants. We do not want to loose more soldiers and Iraq does not want to put its civilians in risk again by having their land become a battle ground. Obama keeps saying "no boots on the ground" yet there are already a few hundred service members there and 475 more to come, Obama needs to withdraw all service members from the ground, no matter what their mission intentions are because this is the beginning to war, something that no one wants.
Firstly, I disagree with sending more US troops into harm’s way, despite the fact that the will not be partaking in any combat. I feel that American can advise from afar via so may way using internet connection that it would be possible to offer American aid as far as strategy goes without sending forces to Iraq. Perhaps and most likely I am incorrectly assuming that Syrian and Iraqi forces will have such devices so as to facilitate this, but I feel that any other means of aid will be better than US troops on the ground. Secondly, I agree with extending US airstrikes. The airstrikes allow the US to aid the Middle East without putting out troops in direct line of fire. It is an available way to quickly eliminate large terrorist camps or facilities. Additionally, I agree that an international coalition would be much more effective against ISIS. It would give America the financial and political backing it needs to take on the ISIS threat. Also, I fear that should we strike on our own, and fail to eliminate every last ISIS member, we could very well be setting ourselves up for another 9-11 attack, becoming, in the eyes of ISIS, the one primary threat to their movement. With the backing of an international coalition, we eliminate or at least minimize this factor. I do not agree with arming the Syrian and Iraqi rebels. Yes I believe we should support them, but I do not believe arming them is a good way to go about doing this. Perhaps military or defense training would be more beneficial without running the risk of said weapons falling into the hands of ISIS.
ReplyDeleteTo combat and destroy ISIS, Obama has included four strategies he plans to utilize:
ReplyDeleteThe first strategy is to include more airstrikes as an offensive measure to get ISIS targets. This strategy will propose more airstrikes than the over 150 airstrikes that the U.S. already carried out. At first, I would think that I don't have much of an opinion on this strategy because there are good possibilities: the possibility of weakening ISIS more quickly. However, this method may be too effective: civilians are possible victims as well. But, the fact that airstrikes are quick and widespread, and can quickly weaken ISIS is a pro that is too hard to ignore. Even if civilian lives are lost, I would say that I agree with this strategy because it seems to be effectively destructive.
The second strategy is to supply more support to allies on the ground. This means that the U.S. is planning to send military assistance--not for combat--but to educate, train, and equip the ISIS opposition fighters. I support this strategy because it isn't too costly (in human lives) and brings positive effects rather than negative: it's a defensive tactic that helps the supporting side and seems to be more valuable than just killing machines.
The third strategy is a counterterrorism measure. This includes working to cut off ISIS funding and stop recruits from joining ISIS. I support this strategy because it targets ISIS at the heart of their strength. It is an intelligent idea because it would let ISIS slowly die out by depriving it of its resources.
The fourth strategy is to provide humanitarian assistance. I support this strategy because it helps communities, religious groups, and civilians pull their weight in a scene of total war. By keeping all these things together, the U.S. isn't just finding a way to relinquish the threat, but to keep the reason why people wanted destroy the threat in the first place.
A few days ago, Obama gave the much-awaited speech about his strategy to bring down ISIS. It had four parts: assist the targeted and escaped , build an International coalition, increase air strikes, and work with the Iraqi government to traget ISIS. I thought that the outline for his strategy included many valid points, but I didn’t agree with all of them. To begin, what I agreed with most was his proposition to build an international coalition to bring down ISIS. I definitely agree that the UN and other nations should get involved because ISIS isn’t only attacking America and Britain (as seen from the videos released a few weeks ago) but Western civilization in general. However, I don’t believe that we should be allying with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Qatar, our supposed allies, when they have reportedly been funding ISIS. Furthermore, when he mentioned moving more advisors to Iraq, I didn’t completely agree because I felt it was unnecessary to send 475 more people there. Though they will assist the refugees and train people, I feel like it is more of an indirect approach. I feel like some troops should go there, but not too many. Furthermore, I feel like it working with the Iraqi government to find ISIS was in fact a good idea because it is them that know Iraq and its people (including the extremists) well. However, we haven't had the best history with them, so I don't think we should depend fully on their assistance. In addition, the article also mentioned that Obama asked Congress to arm and train Syrian rebels. I strongly disagree with this. I feel like history would repeat itself and the same thing that happened in Iraq some years ago would happen again if we arm Syrian rebels. It is a much higher risk to arm them than the Kurdis because there is a higher risk for weapons to fall into the wrong hands. Syria, though in a civil war, has never as a whole been particularly allied with America, and I personally think partnering with them would not be the smartest idea. Instead, I like the idea of air strikes, and feel we should put our money into that as well as look for ways to stop ISIS’s funding. (Freeze banks, is an example of that) They are getting so big because of the money they are getting. In all, this article makes me think about whether or not what we are entering into with ISIS and Iraq is a war or not. I guess we’ll just have to wait and find out.
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama has stated that he is setting up a campaign to get ready and fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He has described the objectives that he will follow that in his perspective, will make a successful campaign. The first objective is to send 475 more military advisers from the United States to Iraq. I agree with this objective because the United States is not sending actual combat troops to stand-by and wait for orders to fight. Nobody wants another war in Iraq. Those military advisers are very likely in Iraq in order to send over intelligence to the American government and armed armed forces to notify the situation and what is going on throughout Iraq, such as: ISIS gaining more territory; civilian massacres formed by ISIS militants, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe second, and best objective, is to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. I strongly agree with this because this objective does involve firing air-strikes at ISIS targets, such as camps, convoys, heavy military equipment, etc. ISIS needs to be annihilated from this planet. These militants have committed gruesome atrocities against their own people just because they don't want to be a part of ISIS! The problem is that the organization is receiving more heavy equipment rapidly, especially tanks, surface-to-surface-missile-systems, and anti-tank guns. For the current Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting against ISIS, it will be much harder to defeat them. Air strikes will drastically weaken the militant group and it will be much easier to defeat them. It is also great to hear that the there will be financial support and military support to Iraqi forces and the Kurdish forces. The Kurdish forces deserve this kind of help the most because they are the most devastated from the atrocities committed by ISIS. The Kurds are willing to give up their own lives right away in order to prevent these militants from taking power on Iraq and Syria, where a good portion of those lands are Kurdish.
The third objective is to get Saudi Arabia into Obama's proposed coalition.This is a very key nation in forming the coalition. Saudi Arabia is the most important nation in the Middle East. This nation is home to the famous, holy places of Islam: Mecca, and Hira. Saudi Arabia is also looked upon as a powerful nation by other Middle Eastern nations because of it's size and economic importance to the region. If Saudi Arabia joins the coalition, then almost every other Middle Eastern nation will not hesitate to join the coalition, which will provide even more military power against ISIS. The fourth objective is to prepare for a military offense. I agree with this objective and I see this as a great strategy because it is important to hope for the best, but it is always very important to be ready for the worst. There has been a lot of evidence that ISIS is much worse than Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda has already been a big threat to the Middle East and other nations, especially the United States. No chances can be taken against this insurgent group.
The last objective is for Obama to receive permission from Congress to be able to properly arm the Syrian rebels. I agree with this idea because the Syrian rebels have a new enemy now. ISIS is trying to take over Syria and change the nation in order for it to follow such customs of radical Islam that the Syrians just don't want. The major problem for the Syrian rebels is that they have barely any equipment. All they have are just a few Kalashnikovs (AK-47s) with a few full-magazines. The rebels are so short of ammunition all the time that they have to always hide and seek refuge in the mountains in Syria. In order for them to defend their homeland, they need someone to supply weapons and ammunition to them. It looks like the United States is the only nation that is willing to do that at this current situation. The sooner the Syrian rebels can get weapons and ammunition, the sooner ISIS will be weakened as it will be fighting Iraqi forces and Syrian rebels from two sides.
The American Dream is now largely unattainable because of stagnant wages and rising costs. Because of this, the cost of living has gone up, but people aren’t making enough money to satisfy those rises in cost. And because of this, most people are not even close to the “American Dream” income, with the median American income being less than half of the “Dream” income.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the cost of education is severely understated. Part of the American Dream is starting from the bottom and working your way to the top, but in order to do this, you need to enter an entry level job. Most high paying industries require a college education, which will cost much more than 4000 dollars for two children, even with financial aid. So college education would be a need, not an extra. I agree with the article in saying that extras like internet, phone, and entertainment are all indeed extras. However, at the bare minimum in this day and age, one needs a landline phone connected to their home, and the ability to use a dialup connection with a computer to have any chance of networking enough to achieve the American Dream.
I was not surprised by the information in this article. We’ve talked in class numerous times about stagnant wages and rising costs in the context of income inequality, while this article deals with class mobility, or the ability to move up in the class system (or achieve The American Dream). Therefore, my reaction to the idea that most of the middle and lower class cannot afford to get to a higher class was, “Of course they can’t,” while groaning and wishing trickle-down economics would just go away.