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
I do not agree with President Obama's plan to deal with ISIS. Sending more troops to Iraq is not the way to go, when we already have over 1,000 soldiers stationed there. Obama was elected on the promise of ending our involvement in the middle east, a promise which he has mostly kept. But now Obama wants to sacrifice more American lives, and go back on his promise. What we should be doing is leaving the control of ISIS to other middle eastern countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Its time for them to step up to the plate and take matters into their own hands. The United States should not be the police of the world. If there is a problem in an area of the world, the countries in that area that should figure it out themselves. The only intervention that the US should be making in the middle east is to help with things such as dropping food, medicine and other supplies to people being deprived of them. This is sufficient enough to save some lives of the citizens in Iraq without endangering the lives of Americans.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with President Barack Obama. I think that if we get involved, we cannot win just by aerial attacks. If we want to rescue the millions of innocent people who are at this very moment being overtaken, and executed, we need to send ground troops. Even though we have 1,000 troops stationed in Iraq, that is not nearly enough to overthrow the powerful force that is ISIS. If we get involved, we have to fight a ground battle. Having said that, we have to get involved, for if we don't, ISIS will overtake the entire Middle East, and then possibly move overseas to America. See, we need to get involved to prevent ISIS possibly overtaking us, and we cannot do that with air strikes alone.
ReplyDeleteI agree but Americans do not want to get involved in a ground war
DeleteI agree with President Obama on the fact that we should continue with the "systematic" and planned airstrikes. This puts us in a quite neutral position from my perspective because we are helping out instead of turning a blind eye, but at the same time we are not involving ourselves in any ground battles which is the last thing a majority of Americans want to see. Meanwhile, I disagree with the proposal of sending another 450 U.S. men into Iraq even if it's not for military purposes. It is time for countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon to step up and address the situation. Some assistance with the airstrikes is as far deep as we should get so we can avoid yet another Iraq war and an increased debt.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with the president's decision to continue with the airstrikes in Iraq. They have been successful in the past by pushing back the ISIS/ISIL forces. It is a much better alternative than putting combat troops on foreign ground again. Also, Obama made a good decision in planning to supply Iraqi and Kurdish with training, intelligence, and equipment because need to stand out of this fight and let the Middle Easterns finish solving their own problem. Most of the time, the US ends up fighting other countries' battles for them and in turn, make more enemies. We have to stop risking our own lives and risk of falling into debt. Therefore, I think that this kind of support is as far as America should go.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the president's decision to continue with the airstrikes in Iraq, due to the fact that they have worked in the past to push out opposing forces. I also support the president's decision to support the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. I believe that if the Iraqis that oppose ISIS, the Kurdish, and the American forces team up to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS, we will be successful. Every group out of the three that create this team have a role in ultimately defeating ISIS: the Iraqis that oppose ISIS more than likely know the ins-and-outs of the group, as well as knowing their way around the country; the Kurdish are only thirty miles away from ISIS' headquarters in Mosul, have a fighting spirit, and have a history of defeating terrorist groups; and finally, America, who will support the Iraqi and Kurdish until the end, both in the air and on the ground. I know the president says that the American troops will not be dragged into another ground war, but I am still afraid that a ground war will be the end result. Hopefully, ISIS will be pushed out before any war-like conflict happens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with President Obama on the part of his plan that outlines the continued United States airstrikes to weaken ISIS. By doing this, America can avoid a ground war, but still weaken ISIS forces. The last thing America needs is to be pulled back to a war that should have ended a decade ago. The cost of American lives has already surpassed than what can be afforded. However, it has to be known that simple airstrikes cannot "degrade and ultimately destroy" a zealous organization such as ISIS. Another part of President Obama's plan that I find precarious is his decision to "increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground." Although this may solve the problem of U.S. ground involvement in Iraq, supplying them with the weapons that could be later used against us is a different matter altogether. During the first gulf war America armed the Mujahideen. Although they did help with the war effort, many later formed into what are now Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist groups. I believe that food, medicine and other related supplies should be given without question. Even so, a limit of the types of weapons to be supplied must be set. No heavy weapons such as machine guns or explosives should be supplied unless extremely required for the war effort against ISIS. Even if explosives and other heavy weapons are needed, they should be given sparingly to prevent future terrorist organizations from acquiring too much weapons and power. America should continue the airstrikes to specifically target ISIS/ISIL and supply the forces that are resisting them, but place limitations on what supplies are to be given to stop the threat of ISIS/ISIL.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with President Obama. We have a plan that's great but there is no certainty it will truly work. Air strikes have not worked in the past and we believe that with Iraq troops doing the ground fighting air strikes will hurt more. Not only that but America has already armed people in Syria. Guess what, they used those weapon we gave them against us. We are not helping we are creating new problems. Not only that but we broadcasted this. I do not know if anyone caught on but what if Isis heard our plan and is, as we speak, starting a counter attack. Our plan is far from flawless but we need to stop trying to control the middle east and let the problem sort itself out because Isis is not the problem, America is because of all our meddling. Remember Isis and Al-Qaeda were formed because America stuck its nose into the middle easts business.
ReplyDeleteFor my explanation of whether or not I agree with Obama’s plan to deal with ISIL, I will explain my thoughts on the individual parts of his plan, as it is extremely unlikely for anyone to find anything they completely agree or disagree with, and this should therefore be evaluated by its individual aspects.
ReplyDeletePart 1- Fight ISIS Using Airstrikes and by Working with the Iraqi Government.
First of all, I do agree with Obama’s plan to use airstrikes against ISIS, but only as long as they are being used on locations of strategic importance to ISIS or on known ISIS strongholds. Otherwise, using airstrikes anywhere ISIS may be passing through is a waste of time, as not every location they take control of is important. Airstrikes are in the right direction as long as they are focused on places ISIS finds vital, as it would take much longer to attack all ISIS-controlled locations when they do not need all of them to succeed.
Also, I agree with working with the Iraqi government to combat ISIS, as it is generally an advantage to have an ally who has more detailed information about the enemy and knows what the threat needs in order to sustain itself. In addition, it is beneficial to have Iraqi forces on more ground-based offense while the US carries out airstrikes, as it means America may not have to join the ground war, assuming there are enough people fighting ISIS. The fact that Iraqi forces will fight ISIS is an effective idea, as airstrikes or ground attacks alone would likely not have enough force to defeat ISIS.
However, I do not agree with Obama’s plan to attack Syria (with airstrikes), as they may not work as well there without proper support. Even if the US did have allies in Syria, it would be in America’s best interest to make sure the plan is initially working in one place rather than involving other areas in the conflict from the start. This is due to the fact that if the plan fails, then it fails everywhere, which would be a huge waste of time and resources. I believe that the US should wait until they have a working operation in Iraq before they attempt to expand to Syria for the reasons stated before, and should just be prepared for now to deal with members of ISIS in Syria should they move back into Iraq, which should be prevented with airstrikes on Iraq’s borders, but most importantly the Syrian border, on any group that can be identified as a part of ISIS to enclose the terrorists and erase them from Iraq. (See replies for remainder of post)
Part 2- Increase Support for People Fighting ISIS on the Ground
DeleteI agree with the plan to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces by training them, providing them with equipment, and helping them with intelligence because it allows the US to put fighters out to combat ISIS that would want to destroy ISIS more than most Americans, who are tired of war., and it prevents Americans from having to join a ground war. However, the US should not supply Iraqi and Kurdish troops with too many supplies and weapons, as the US cannot spend large portions of its budget on exactly what it has been spending its budget on for the past ten years: Even more war. The US still needs to have a sufficient budget to operate internally, and only needs to give Iraqi and Kurdish forces what they need to efficiently and successfully fight ISIS. This is also because they could one day turn their weapons against the US that it provided them, as other groups who America has applied the same strategy on have done.
Although I agree with the plan to aid forces in Iraq, I believe that the US should not extend this to Syria yet because it is still too early to determine how this strategy will work out in Iraq, and should only be applied to Syria if it becomes necessary. Also, it is less certain that Syrian rebels will respond similarly to forces in Iraq and not turn the weapons and training against the US. Therefore, I believe this plan should be applied only to Iraq at the moment, and Syria should be left alone all together until it becomes clear that ISIS can be combated efficiently there, as to prevent widespread failure.
Part 3- Counterterrorism Efforts
DeleteI agree with this part of the US’s plan for ISIS (specifically increasing intelligence and improving defenses), as a good defense is always an important part of strategy; if a powerful force cannot sustain itself for an extended period, then it cannot succeed at its initial job of being offensive. This is why I believe it is important to prevent ISIS from controlling more territory and carrying out more attacks by improving intelligence so that ground forces can know ahead of time how to stop ISIS attacks based on where they are headed and where they are located. I also think it is correct to slow the flow of fighters into and out of the Middle East, as it keeps the conflict within that area and does not involve too much of the rest of the world.
I also believe in cutting the funding of ISIS, as it will prevent them from receiving money from outside sources and donations, making them weaker and less able to continue their operations. My only problem with this is that it will take a long time to track down donors to ISIS, and it cannot be guaranteed that new ones will not appear. Also, ISIS is now generating many of its own funds through the territories that they invade and take control of, so the way the US must cut off ISIS funding is by preventing the growth of ISIS’s reach and by preventing them from selling things like oil. This can work, but it just may take too long for it to have a real effect. However, I believe that it is a worthwhile investment to attempt to stop ISIS from receiving more resources, as they cannot continue without them, so if it does work quickly, depleting their funding could mean everything.
One thing that Obama said that I would like to make a note of is how he wants to “counter” ISIS’s “warped ideology”. I disagree with this, as it is too difficult to accomplish at this time. In order to accomplish this feat, the US must wait until ISIS has been weakened in order to more easily slow the spread of their ideology. However, there is no way to truly take out an ideology. People can try all they want, but unless all people who believe, have ever believed, and will ever believe in an ideology are eradicated and all information on the ideology is taken out, it will live on in some small way, even if just the fact that it happened is remembered. This is a horrible idea, and the world can really only focus on groups formed from a horrible ideology, as these are the people who can use these thoughts to hurt others. Therefore, the US needs to “counter” ISIS’s “warped ideology” simply by fighting ISIS. It would likely be a waste of time to try otherwise, as the only other way would be to saturate the world with anti-ISIS propaganda, which would likely be ineffective due to the ideas ISIS has already given many people.
Part 4- Humanitarian Efforts
DeleteI agree with Obama’s plan to help those who have been displaced by ISIS, as it is just common sense and human decency to help those who are suffering, especially in a situation like this, where providing resources to those displaced, such as religious minorities, would not cost too much or be a problem, especially after ISIS loses its control on Iraqi territories.
Overall
I agree with the plan to form a broad coalition of partners to fight ISIS, as there is strength in numbers, and by adding more nations to the coalition there is more support for the US’s efforts against ISIS, improving the chances that it will be destroyed.
I also agree with the US not becoming directly involved in a ground war, as this would be unnecessary and waste resources that the US cannot afford.
For this plan as a whole, I agree with many actions, but feel that some of them could be improved or even need to be changed altogether. I cannot agree with a plan that has not been optimized and had many, if not all, outcomes considered. It is for this reason that I cannot say I agree with this plan. While there are working parts, there are missing ones as well, and a machine cannot run (or run well or correctly, at least) without having all of its parts, all of which must be working. If actions are taken to improve this plan, such as by not going into Syria too early, then I would be able to approve it, but for now, I can only agree with certain sections of it.
One must inspect the major parts of this strategy in order to figure out the plan’s benefits and discommodities. Each course of action is different where I agree or disagree with each one. To commence, I strongly oppose Obama’s decision to arm and support the Syrian rebels and the other fighters. The United States simply cannot trust the rebels with our weapons and technology. Even if we have worked with them for two years, it does not prove that we are strong allies. Those rebels are unpredictable, as they might commit traitorous deeds against America. Additionally, it will cost too much money to effectively support the opposition fighters. We would also have to send more military advisors to aid the rebels, which will add to the already high number of Americans that are there.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, I do agree with the rest of his plan. The systematic airstrikes are indeed proving to be useful as they provide cover and protection to the innocent people we are defending. Sending in supplies for the suffering people is an excellent course of action, as we should always defend the lives of the innocent who are being harassed by others.
I firmly support the decision to create an international coalition. In addition to our ten allies, we should also gain the support of the countries within the Middle East. With them on our side, our goal of stopping ISIS will be achieved swiftly. An international coalition will allow us to successfully defeat ISIS without any sort of ground invasion because of how much power we have as a team, where we can achieve our goal by other means that are more superior and efficient. However, we need to make sure that the international coalition is strongly formed, as some allies may not want to give out their full support. If that does happen, then we should gain the support of other superpowers, such as China and Russia even if it is a difficult task.
It doesn’t matter if people agree or disagree with Obama’s strategy, this war is inevitable. We must solve this crisis in the most efficient way possible before the situation gets out of hand. If we ignore or do not focus on this threat, in the near future ISIS will become a superpower, where they will have controlled most of the Middle East and start assaulting the rest of the world.
I agree with President Obama on his plan to counter ISIS. He stated that the purpose of this plan will be to "degrade, and ultimately destroy ISIL". The way that he will do this is going to minimize America's physical involvement in the area, while still eroding away on ISIS from all corners. This includes weakening their manpower, cutting off their funding, and fighting their very cause. This is a very comprehensive strategy that covers all areas of the ISIS offensive, while making sure that the Middle Eastern countries, who will be directly impacted by this threat, are leading the main offensive on the ground. This is a cautious approach in terms of protecting our soldiers and resources, yet it is an approach that will be sure to drive out and destroy the enemy. ISIS is a terrorist organization that wants to form a terrorist state. As they currently pose no direct threat to us, it is right that we should not be fighting at the front lines (America's current role is to provide equipment, intelligence, training, and air support). But if this organization is allowed to take root and mature, they will surely begin to ponder engaging bigger targets, such as the United States and Europe. We must assist the Middle Eastern countries in fighting this threat, so that we secure the safety and the futures of us and our allies. Also, as a global superpower promoting freedom, democracy, and liberty, we do have a certain responsibility to help those who are being mercilessly killed and persecuted for their beliefs. Therefore, it is right that we liberate, protect, and provide humanitarian aid to those who are suffering due to the fighting.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama also stated that he has authorized airstrikes on Syria in order to fight ISIS. Russia has issued a statement that any US strike on Syrian soil without UN backing will result in "a gross violation of international law". Syria has also stated that any airstrikes on its territory must be coordinated with the Syrian government. So far, neither of these conditions have been met, and it appears that Obama does not plan on meeting any of them. I do not wholly believe that this was a wise move, considering that it may provoke negative reactions from the two countries. However, the ISIS threat in Syria is indeed legitimate, and we must engage the whole threat, not just parts of it. If airstrikes in Syria become necessary, then hopefully the backing of the coalition may neutralize any major reactions from Syria and Russia. History have shown that this can become messy, so therefore I believe that engaging the Syrian threat should come later, at least with proper approval from the involved parties. Obama must look strong, but it is better that one conflict does not lead to multiple conflicts.
Overall, I agree with Obama's plan to attack ISIS. It results in minimal physical involvement from US forces, but it will definitely counter the threat from all sides. I believe that Obama's position on Syria could result in another conflict, but the ISIS threat there must be met. No plan is perfect, and rarely are these things executed without problems, but if purely looked at from the point of view of dealing with ISIS, then this plan will appease most people while getting the job done.
I do not one hundred percent agree with President Obama's plan to become more militarily involved in the ISIS conflict in the Middle East. Yes, I do agree with supporting the victims as much as possible and I did support dropping food to the Yazidis trapped on the mountain, but giving food and aid is different than sending soldiers to fight. And although Obama did say that no American soldiers will fight on foreign soil, I believe it will come to that. It's nearly impossible to win a war without it. How are we suppsed to drop bombs and train the Kurdish to fight, then leave once we send them off to battle? If we are militarily involved, the government will most likely decide to stay until we reach our goal and who knows how many people will die before that? I am not saying that we should ignore the issue; I believe as people of the Earth, it's our job to help others even on the other side of the planet. And if there's anyone that can help, it would be our country. But, Obama only wanted to attack after ISIS threatened America and our allies. To me, we should get involved, not to hunt down ISIS for treason, but to actually try and help the people there who were a lot more than just threatened by this terrorist group. But my problem is, I have no idea what would be a good solution. It may be because I know practically nothing about military strategy or maybe because there truly is no good resolution to this issue. My usual reflex is to fight fire with water, but when the fire has taken over an entire country covered in oil, that's not going to work. I don't think this war can be won without many casualties and deaths on both sides, but I also know that if we don't fight the war then the deaths will be rather one sided with ISIS alive and thriving. It's difficult to predict what will be the outcome of any attempt we make at defeating ISIS. Obama's doing the best he can but I can't fully agree with his decision and to be frank I might not be able to agree with any view on this topic.
ReplyDeleteObama, in this video, has made an outline for what he is going to do and how he is going to do it. He starts off by saying that he is going to continue airstrikes. He did not mention whether or not the airstrikes have had any effect. He did not show that the airstrikes were having any effect. The airstrikes seem like a clumsy, roundabout way for America to help without getting soldiers in Iraq. Maybe they are working, the president doesn’t say. I can’t say I agree that this is the best way. After this, he says that he has already sent in hundreds of Americans to find the best way to support the area. It is a shame he doesn’t tell us what that way is.
ReplyDeleteHe continues with saying that he’ll send in an additional 475 to assist with training, intelligence, and equipment. I guess I can agree with that. He also wants Congress to give him more resources. I cannot agree with that sentiment. In 2011 the military spending clocked in at 741 billion, and it has only gone up since then. What did you do with that money so that you need more to supply the fighters? It just seems like the money isn’t being spent in the right places if you need more and more money every year even while you are trying to get out of wars.
The final area I want to address is that he said that he wants to “cut off funding, improve intelligence, and counter their corrupt ideology”. I don’t understand what “countering their corrupt ideology” means. Does it mean America will brainwash everyone who thinks that America is bad? Does it mean that we will kill anyone who doesn’t think the same way we do? It might mean that we will counter the ideology that killing people is a justifiable way to get the caliphate, but the president is being so vague about everything it is impossible to tell. Overall, I disagree with most of what the president is saying.
The first part of President Obama's strategy involves continuing with targeted airstrikes. I agree with this. So far, systematic airstrikes have taken down major ISIS targets. I especially like this idea because it doesn't involve risking the lives of any American soldiers. The second part of Obama's strategy increases support to the Iraqi soldiers fighting on the ground. This includes deploying an additional 475 service members needed for "training, intelligence and equipment". This is a good strategy because it lets Iraq fight its own war. America does not want to send our troops to fight someone else's battles. Instead, it gives Iraq all of the supplies it needs to win its own war. The next part of the President's strategy doubles efforts to cut off ISIS's funding. I think this is an extremely important strategy. If the funding to ISIS is cut off, they will run out of the supplies that they need to continue terrorizing the Middle East. In relation to the political cartoon, there would be no "gas" to fill their "car". Obama's final strategy continues to provide aid to innocent civilians displaced by ISIS. Of course, this is a completely acceptable strategy. The religious minorities of Iraq are in great danger. ISIS is threatening genocide against anyone who stands in the way of their Islamic State. It is important that someone strives to protect the civilians of Iraq especially because ISIS is so powerful. Overall, I agree with President Obama's strategies against ISIS. They should help push back and ultimately defeat the terrorist group that terrorizes the world.
ReplyDeleteIn President Obama's speech on ISIS, the President outlined his plan to overthrow ISIS in the Middle East. I agree with all of the points that he made in his speech which were: conducting more air strikes in Iraq and Syria, sending 475 U.S. Service members to Iraq to help Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting ISIS, using counterterrorism tactics to prevent attacks from ISIS, and helping the civilians by continuing with the humanitarian efforts. As President Obama said in his speech, previous air strikes were working, and conducting more air strikes will hopefully weaken ISIS and protect civilians. Also, sending more service members to Iraq will strengthen troops fighting against ISIS by providing them with support. In addition, counterterrorism acts such as cutting off funding will hopefully end ISIS attacks. Lastly, I agree with the President's idea in continuing humanitarian efforts because people who are apart of minority religious groups in the Middle East will get support and hopefully survive from ISIS attacks with our help.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I agree with Obama’s decision to continue with the airstrikes in Iraq because they have worked in the past to help to push back ISIS. This allows America to avoid a ground war, but also weaken ISIS forces. I also agree with his decision to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces by training them, giving them equipment, and helping them to become more intelligent. In addition, I also believe in the cutting of ISIS’ funding. This will prevent them from receiving more money from outside sources, which will make them weaker, and more difficult for them to carry out operations. Although this is a smart strategy, it will take time to track down its donors and stop them. ISIS also now has money from the places they conquer. Lastly, I agree with Obama’s idea in continuing humanitarian efforts. This will help religious minorities, such as Christians. Overall, I agree with Obama’s plan, in hopes it will push back and defeat ISIS.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Obama’s strategy for combating ISIS because he may be setting us up for a much worse positon then we are in currently. Obama says that he is deploying hundreds of new advisors to help out and train opposition forces, but I feel that any involvement of the U.S. may be dangerous. If we aid the opposition forces in their training, and ISIS makes a move to take over the land occupied by the people being trained, are U.S. combat forces expected to help or are we supposed to stand by and watch? If we stand by and watch, the opposition may not trust us and if we help out, then there is inevitably going to be loss of American lives. I say that instead of leading this broad coalition, we should wait and see what happens. War comes with a massive cost, one which we simply cannot afford to un-nessicarily finance, therefore I say that we should stay neutral as long as we possibly can and if a serious threat towards America arises, and only then do we develop a plan of attack.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what President Obama is proposing. I am glad that he is not suggesting that we send thousands of soldiers into Iraq to fight; we all know that that is the last thing this country needs. Airstrikes will be safer than ground fighting, but we have to be careful to make sure that we are being accurate to ensure that there will be no loss of innocent lives. Joining with other countries will allow us to work harder and more efficiently. Lastly, supplying humanitarian assistance is definitely a good decision. It is not just to allow thousands of innocent people to suffer needlessly. With our support, lives will be saved and improved. However, if this turns out to get too dangerous, we should pull all of our people out of Iraq and try to help from afar.
ReplyDeleteBecause there are so many pieces to Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy, it is only fair to give each piece a rightful and individualized review. Part 1 of Obama’s plan is about the systematic campaign of airstrikes that the US will conduct. These airstrikes can be very useful. Matter of fact, just last month, after ISIS had seized Iraq’s largest dam located in Mosul, they were quickly defeated by none other than American airstrikes. Airstrikes could play a pivotal role in terminating ISIS, especially if our air power is combined with the Iraqi government’s efforts on the ground. At the very end of Obama’s part 1 explanation he included a hard-faced attack on terrorists everywhere saying that for people who threaten our country, there will be “no safe haven.” By highlighting the “core principle of his presidency” he was able to reinforce a sense of offensive rather than defensive strategies on the US’s part which is how our country should act, post-9/11.
ReplyDeletePart 2 is essentially about supporting the forces fighting terrorists on the ground. Now that Iraq has formed a more solid and stable government, they are more equipped to fight off ISIS. That is why I approve of the few hundred service members acting as advisors. It is comforting to hear that there will not be another ground war in Iraq where American soldiers are killed. Supporting Iraqi/Kurdish forces to stand up to ISIS may be just what the countries needs to permanently destroy the powerhouse of terror that is ISIS. However, I do oppose Obama’s stance on arming the Syrian opposition since there is still so much we do not know about them. It is very likely that some of them could be radical rebels.
Part 3 is perhaps the most vague and misguided portion of his four part plan. He words it as “[Continuing] to draw on [the US’s] substantial counter terrorism capabilities to prevent ISIS attacks.” He then lists several things and does not care to elaborate even the slightest bit. He wants to improve intelligence. Wait! doesn’t that mean sending more Americans into Iraq? Most likely. Then he wants to cut off ISIS funding. How on Earth does he plan to do that? ISIS is gathering funds from so many sources ranging from taxation to black market oil to supportive backers in wealthy Gulf States. Additionally, he wants to “counter [ISIS’s] warped ideology.” Fix brainwashing with more brainwashing? Sounds like a plan. NOT. All in all, this portion of his plan has too many holes, leaving it open to interpretation. That gives critics of Obama an easy target.
Part 4 is something I could definitely get on board with. Obama uses this last portion to tug at heartstrings everywhere. He wants the US to “continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who been displaced by this terrorist organization.” He is talking about helping everyone, sunnis, shias, and minorities alike. It is true that we cannot allow communities full of innocent families to be driven from their ancient homelands. It is cruel and unjust. We should most certainly intervene with aiding the innocent at the very least, above all other offensive attacks aimed at ISIS.
Obama has finally come up with a plan, a controversial one, but a plan nonetheless. The first item he addresses is the airstrikes. America will continue to launch "a systematic campaign of airstrikes" against ISIS. This part of the plan is beneficial and effective for us as a whole. The large majority of the reason is that we prevent American lives from being lost rather than risk it on a full out ground war. Another large part is that these air strikes have actually been working. We have been slowing down ISIS's forces. The Mosul Dam was reclaimed by American forces and their airstrikes. Financially this helps us too, because we save money. A war costs a whole lot more to fund than airstrikes do.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of his plan is to basically send advisers and technology to help strengthen the Iraq government and support their attacks on ISIS. This is also beneficial to us as well. There is the emphasis again, that we will not lose more American lives, which is always a comforting reassurance. We can always use more allies in this situation, and with their help we can win this and ultimately destroy ISIS. The possible backfire that could happen though, is that when we arm the allies, in particular the Syrians, and give them our technology and knowledge, that afterwards they may turn on us. This is just a risk we have to take, in any allies we have been able to make, past and currently.
The next part of his plan is frankly a lost cause. Obama has summarized that we will use all of our necessary resources and cut off their funding. Yet, this is not an effective way to slow down ISIS, then again even stop them. ISIS has resources too, and can easily find new ways to supply themselves, that is, if we even find out what resources they are using. Our technology is advanced but not THAT advanced. They have obviously been very successful at keeping the supply source hidden so why try? It's like trying to use a steak knife to cut into concrete. It's impossible to do.
His final item was concerning the people being affected by the terrorist group. Of course, I support the movement of sending more supplies to all people in need. It is cruel the things that are happening to them, and if we turned a blind eye towards all the suffering that is going on we are just as bad as ISIS. The innocent people should be a priority in the war and intervention by Americans is the right thing to do.
I agree with President Obama's efforts to stop ISIS. By launching more airstrikes, the United States will have a better opportunity on getting a lead on ISIS. This way, the United States will avoid an unnecessary ground war that just takes several American lives. In the same manner, the United States is not stopping from providing aid to Iraqi citizens, the United States is still helping the minority groups that are threatened by ISIS. By helping to stop ISIS, Unites States citizen will also be better protected from the terrorists. In addition, by arming and providing military training to Syrian rebels is an excellent decision. Instead of relying primarily on the airstrikes, having people on the inside fighting the extremists will benefit as well. President Obama is going in the right direction when he mentions that he is looking to build coalition between allied nations. I fully support Obama's decisions in stopping ISIS.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Obama's strategy because of his choice of sending more troops out there. We have all seen what ISIS does and putting Americans out there with the risk of that is not a wise choice. I do however, agree with his choice to use airstrikes as lives will not be at risk as a ground war would. The strikes have helped in the past when eliminating targets and taking back territory. Arming and training others is a chance to take as doing so in the past have turned against us. As a nation I feel we should not get too involved as we don't even have the money to, but sending humanitarian aid is acceptable and non-threatening. The Middle East should handle the bulk of this ISIS problem on their own as America always seems to be the police of the world. America doesn't need more enemies and threats as we are still sore over 9/11 and if it was up to ISIS they would do something even more devastating.
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with President Obama's plan of action. America is (obviously) a powerful nation and it should be involved, though it seems as though the neighboring countries are slacking. Besides this, I agreed with his sending of 475 service members and with the avoidance of ground war. The American contributions of training, intelligence, and equipment will strengthen Iraqi and Kurdish forces, leading to the ultimate defeat of ISIS. Also, I agreed with his plan of America reaching out people suffering in the Middle East. Finally, I agreed with his plan of defending and strengthening America and it's forces to prevent potential attacks. I believe this plan is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Obama’s decision against ISIS. I agree, because it will not turn into a war, while effectively taking down the enemy. ISIS is a big problem, and Obama has a fairly reasonable solution to it. The air strikes target the enemy without affecting too many innocent civilians. They also cause less US soldier casualties than when there are troops on the land. On another note, funding Iraqi and Syrian opposition groups will aid us in the fight against ISIS, while preventing the losses of more American lives. The other part I agree with is the approval of Title 10, which allows for foreign monetary aid in the helping Iraqi and Syrian rebel groups. This allows the US and other nations to help the people affected most by ISIS without putting all the financial responsibility on one nation. All in all, I agree with Obama’s plan.
ReplyDeleteOn September 10, 2014, President Barack Obama released his plan to combat the terrorist group ISIS to the public. His speech described four different parts of action:
ReplyDeletePart 1: A systematic campaign of airstrikes
In the first part of Obama's plan to combat ISIS, he describes a plan in which he would work with the Iraqi Government to continue to attack ISIS with airstrikes, moving into an offensive position and expanding the range of fire to Syria as well as Iraq. I agree with Obama in this part of his speech. This strategy allows for more force against ISIS, without launching an all out ground war against the terrorist group and sacrificing American lives. As for expanding the attacks to Syria, I believe it will help in targeting the terrorists so they have, as Obama puts it, "no safe haven".
Part 2: Increased ground support
In the second part of Obama's strategy, he states that he is going to deploy 475 more troops to Iraq. However, they will not be involved in combat, and their main purpose is to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment. I do not agree with this part of Obama's strategy. Although I believe we should support the Kurdish forces in Iraq, I do not think we should send Americans over to the mid-east. Instead, I think we should send money and equipment and allow the Kurdish to combat ISIS with their Army and our support. We have sent many troops to Iraq already, and I believe our objective should be to keep American troops as uninvolved as possible. Obama also states in this part of his strategy that he is going to ramp up the military assistance to Syrian Rebels and help Iraq set up National Guard units to help Sunni communities gain freedom from ISIS. I believe that supporting Syrian Rebels is a reasonable way to go, but I think it would be better to invest more money in supporting the Kurds, because they have more military experience and can fight effectively against ISIS. I agree with Obama in his plan to help Sunni communities.
Part 3: Prevent ISIS attacks
In the third part of Obama's speech, he explains his plan to work with partners and cut off ISIS funding. He also states his plan to stop the flow of foreign fighters in and out of the middle east. These are both very good ideas, and would definitely help slow down ISIS, but are very high hopes and would be very difficult to carry out. However, if Obama can manage to accomplish both those things, I will support him.
Part 4: Humanitarian assistance to innocents
In the last part of Obama's plan to combat ISIS, he reveals that he will send humanitarian assistance to Innocent civilians in the mid-east, specifically Sunni and Shia Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities. This plan is something I definitely agree with. These religious groups are being forced to either convert or die, and are in danger in the presence of ISIS. Helping them out will not contribute to beating ISIS, but will lessen the number of innocent lives lost and the damage that ISIS have and will cause.
In all, I mostly agree with Obama's plan to stop ISIS. by applying more force on ISIS with airstrikes and ground support, it will definitely aid in the destruction of the terrorist group without acting to trigger-happy and warlike. In addition to more force, providing support for those in danger in the presence of ISIS will save lives from ISIS's brutality. If the United States can carry out this plan successfully, than I believe we will be able to take down ISIS in the long run.
I personally do not agree with the strategy President Obama wants to use in order to stop ISIS. By involving American troops in the Syrian Civil War, and putting them up against these dangerous terrorists, not only is their safety an issue, but so is the safety of America as a nation. Also, a lot of money will be put into this effort, which could have been used to fund other projects relating to our country. I don't think that America should have to act as the "police force" for the world all of the time, and nearby countries in the middle east should be aiding Iraq and Syria. If we train rebels, they have the potential to turn on us, and it has happened in the past. Similarly, the United States has already been in Iraq two times, and it probably is not the best idea to return for a third time. History has taught us that getting involved in other countries affairs hasn't had positive results. Yet, I don't think that the United States shouldn't take action. Instead of potentially becoming involved in a full-on war, we could continue to drop supplies to the people stuck on the mountain, and send agents to help find out more information about ISIS. If we try to fight the terrorist group too early or in the wrong way, then America will be looking at serious danger in the future.
ReplyDeleteHearing Obama's strategy, there are parts I agree and disagree with. Overall, his plan is to secure government and safety to the country without getting our own men militarily involved in a ground war is a great way to help. I disagree about his tactics of using air strikes, so far they have only set back ISIS momentarily but not fully stop them. These air strikes, in the first part of his four part plan, seem to be ineffective and are costly, in which the money could be used to restore the lives of people who have been affected by ISIS in Iraq. As President Obama stated, "If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven." This statement clearly shows Obama is willing to do anything for his country, but these air strikes will be hurting our government and making the U.S. more of a target for ISIS to attack. Although, I do agree that we should expand protection. In the second part of Obama's plan, he says he wants to increase ground support WITHOUT causing a ground war. The 700 Americans that are to be sent to Iraq in June to assess the damage done and to find ways to support the Iraqi people, I believe, will definitely help to reach the goal of completing that work and to also help rebuild the Iraqi government. In completing this, the 475 service members will greatly benefit those suffering. Also, not getting into another ground war will help our efforts of creating a better relationship with Iraq and maintaining it by giving them training, intelligence, and equipment. Hopefully, this will allow us to gain a strong relationship with the new Iraqi government that will not turn against us in the future, and instead, be our ally. By training and equipping the Iraqi's, it is something American forces should strongly observe so they do not turn their backs on us. I also agree that we should work with other nations to attempt to cut off funding of ISIS. Another decision Obama made to advance on in this strategy is the meeting he will be holding in 2 weeks with the U.N. Security Council to "further mobilize the national community". Lastly, I believe we should continue to provide assistance to those currently suffering from being displaced due to ISIS.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with Obama and his strategy because he has a logical and effective plan to take down ISIS. Initially, Obama deployed over 400 troops to Iraq to figure out the most effective way for a counter terrorist operation. He realizes that instead of just deploying thousands of troops to Iraq that we should start with some long range attacks like air strikes. Not only is he going to launch long ranged attacks, bu he is also going to work with the newly set up Iraqi government to make sure that our attacks will have the highest percentage of success. Also, Obama knows that getting dragged into another ground war would be a very bad idea and one in which high amounts of casualties would be seen. So he thought of a way around the brick wall and proposes to send troops to help the aid resistance become more organized. This includes training and supplying them with weapons. As a result of this we would not only be helping the Iraqi's but also keeping our casualties low in the process. Lastly, helping the innocent that were pushed from their homes in the process of ISIS rising is a sign of good faith and when this mess is all over we may have made a crucial ally.
ReplyDelete