The activist journalism group, Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently, has documented more than 3,829 airstrikes and 1,873 civilian deaths throughout battles in the city, and says 450,000 people remain displaced from the city. Additionally, Iraq's own security forces have frequently resorted to brutality against civilians, especially in places like Mosul where ISIS held a stronghold until recently.
In the wake of all of this chaos, there is no doubt that these countries will need help rebuilding themselves, however, as the article "America's successful campaign to defeat ISIS militarily has a glaring 'Achilles heel'" writes, "the "Achilles heel" of the US-led coalition's strategy is that it makes no preparations to resolve these complex problems, and focuses solely on a military victory over ISIS". Therefore, the US has only been concerned about winning and defeating ISIS thus far, with virtually no plans as to how they will solve the possibly bigger problems of political instability in the aftermath of these attacks.
Solving these problems would require devoting even more military aid and time to these countries that may pose a burden on the US, but, without this aid, these countries may struggle to rebuild and may be even more vulnerable to future terrorist group and other attacks. Additionally, Syria and Iraq are divided ethnically between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis (currently the Shiites hold most of the power while the Sunnis are considered the minority group). Therefore, the solution to this problem of political instability and rebuilding must address class struggles within these countries as well.
Questions:
- As Commander in Chief, what powers does the president have over this situation? How would you handle the situation as president?
- At what point must we draw the line when trying to fight against terrorism? Is putting an end to terrorism worth all the innocent lives lost and destruction caused in the process? Why or why not?
- How can the US help or influence the Shiites in order to maintain order and peace once the fight against terrorism is over in Syria and Iraq (ex: military assistance)?
2. As long as terrorism is an immediate threat to the American people, the US should be concerned about fighting back. But, American security is not the only thing at stake. Since World War I, the US has been increasingly involved in global affairs. This world policing has been costly in terms of money and lives. At one point, the government must examine how much it values its global standing. Scaling back campaigns against terrorism means losing a lot of power in the Middle East. Some may argue that the US has no business brokering peace in the Middle East, but I think that the US' engagements are far too great to retract at this point in time. When weighing the cost of innocent lives against stopping terrorism, US involvement in the conflict seems worthless and illogical. However, in the grand scheme of American foreign power, the US must remain in the fight against terrorism.
ReplyDelete1. If I was in the shoes of the president then I would also continue to fight against ISIS. The fight that the U.S is part of in the Middle east is a fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, in the efforts to defeat ISIS, the U.S has taken many innocent lives. However, the fight in the Middle east is to destroy ISIS and get rid of any possible terrorist attacks that could happen on American soil such as 9/11. Ever since 9/11 many terrorist organizations have either failed or were scared to attack America. In the case where I would be commander in chief, I would make sure that the U.S could do everything in its power to fight terrorism and keep the American people safe.
ReplyDeleteAt what point must we draw the line when trying to fight against terrorism? Is putting an end to terrorism worth all the innocent lives lost and destruction caused in the process? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteTo start, I think that this is a very valid question and one that has been running through the minds of many Americans in recent times. Because the United States has taken very extensive measures to end terrorism, the lives of many innocent people have been lost. While we invade countries such as Iraq and Somalia, the lives of innocent women, even children are bing taken. When does this end, I often wonder. I think that the US needs to take more caution on the people being killed in these countries. Every life is equal and just as the US military fights for the freedom and lives of the American people, people in the Middle East should also be protected and not at risk. It is important not to generalize a population rather, target specific people that have been evidently involved in terrorism.
Hi this is my post but I was not logged in so my name is not displayed. (Samantha Aspin)
Delete1. As Commander-in-Chief, I would have drawn out of the fight against ISIS a long time ago. I think that the fight against ISIS has never been a real threat to the United States due to ISIS never really having enough power to attack the United States, and also due to the fact that Russia has been extremely effective in their bombings of ISIS. Instead, I would have allocated US money to removing al-Assad from power, because his chemical weapons are the real threat to the United States.
ReplyDelete2. Because the United States is such a powerful country, we involve ourselves in foreign affairs and often take on the role of protecting other countries and serving as a diplomat. However, oftentimes we take on more than we can handle and cause more harm than good. Terrorism is a terrible thing, and I believe it is important that it is ended, however I think that many issues within the Middle East have been caused by US involvement, and the line should have been drawn long ago. No matter the issue at hand, such a high amount of civilian should not be overlooked. Considering the lack of progress the United States has made in ending terrorism as well as the heartbreaking amount of civilian deaths, I think it is time for the US to draw the line in fighting ISIS in the Middle East.
ReplyDelete2. When it comes to ending terrorism, there has never been a fine line between when to involve ourselves and when not to. What began as a crusade for one reason opened up questions for continued involvement for another, and if we were to be involved in one place, then some would ask why not another. Unfortunately, the US has been caught staggering the line quite often. In all fairness, the political, social, and military stability in foreign countries is very complex compared to ours, especially in countries of the Middle East and parts of Africa. For that reason, we have made a number of tactical blunders in our involvement as well as our non-involvement or inability to commit. I personally feel as though the US has opened up a Pandora's Box so to speak that cannot so easily be dealt with. We've debated for years about our involvement in the Middle East, and while some argue that we never should have been there in the first place, I argue that that is no longer the question. The question remains of what we should commit to do from here on out. Being halfway involved prevents us from settling our issues and wastes valuable American lives. I do believe that American lives take precedence in situations of war and foreign dispute, so switching between involvement and non-involvement depending on the public opinion at the time deeply upsets me. It's important for us to define our goals before we even get into these disputes as to avoid confusion afterwards. If we wanted to commit to stopping ISIS and only ISIS, then so be it, but we would then need to shift our focus to areas in Africa where these terrorist offshoots of ISIS are growing and ISIS is rebuilding. Merely fighting in Iraq and leaving at the first sign of success would allow time for them to rebuild. Instead, if we were to focus on rebuilding the Middle East as some suggest is more important, then the battle against ISIS would be held in a different light and something to be in addition to providing stability rather than our main goal. It may actually inhibit our ability to stop ISIS from growing in other areas, but we would at least be working towards some long term stability in the region of focus. Whatever we choose to do, I feel as though it is our responsibility to see it through, even if it means throughout different presidencies. In the end, the question is what do we do from here, not what we should have done years ago.
ReplyDelete2. In order to ensure the safety of America and its allies, involvement will be ultimately necessary when it comes to terrorism. Because these people have time and again made themselves the enemy of the free world, as the leader of this world, the U.S. has to step in. Scaling back the fight against terrorism means succeeding power in the Middle East to these radicals. Because we have become so involved with the conflict, it is impossible at this point to not see it through to its conclusion.
ReplyDelete2. Knowing how to draw the line for when to fight and when not to fight terrorism is almost impossible since each scenario is different and sometimes it only becomes clear if it is worth fighting it halfway through the battle. Overall, the effectiveness and the justified motives behind a battle against terrorism can only be analyzed after it is all over when the effects are clear. That is why drawing the line on foreign influence has been an issue in American politics for several decades.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of ISIS in the Middle East, it is true that there were civilian and soldier casualties and a lot of money was invested. For example, the battle for Mosul alone killed more than 40,000 civilians and 1200 Iraqi security personnel as well as cost $50bn in damage. Baghdad alone had a reconstruction bill of $100bn dollars. However, as it stands today ISIS is essentially defeated. In retrospect, this specific war, in my opinion, was not worth it.
The US is one of the leading world power, and they take on this role their involvement in foreign affairs to ensure / create stability in countries who are unable to do on their own. Since the 9/11 attack, the US has taken on the task to eradicate terrorism, especially in the Middle East. Terrorism had threatened the safety of the American people. There is no clear line to be drawn when fighting against terrorism because the line is drawn wherever the majority of the American public says it should be drawn. Ending terrorism is important, but whether or not it was worth all the innocent lives lost and destruction caused in the process is a subjective question. There is a story and motive behind each side to every war, the answer to the question depends on which side you argue from. In the end, there isn’t a “it was worth” or “it wasn’t worth it” until the very end.
ReplyDelete1) It it were up to me I would continue the fight against ISIS and look for victory. Our current strategy of massive a amounts of air support and backing local insurgents is working and will continue to work. Once ISIS is gone, the US should contribute much more aid to Iraq and look to rebuild a strong democratic Iraq any way possible. If this means dividing the country into 3 states based on religion then it will have to happen. We need a strong Iraq to serve as a supplier of oil and a strong partner in the middle east to counter Syrian forces.
ReplyDelete