Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Military chiefs: ISIL has ‘tactical momentum
America has begun a new military conflict in Iraq, and so far it's results are not promising. Despite air strikes and millions spent by the US each day, ISIL is still gaining ground and the government of Iraq, even with the help of American advisors, has yet to retake any territory captured by the Islamic State. A Pentagon spokesman has warned that the Defense Department insists that the war cannot be won solely through air power, and that the conflict may drag on for years. This brings to question whether America will once again be involved in a ground war in Iraq, and even whether pulling out of Iraq as early as America did was prudent, considering this current predicament.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I honestly dont know whether or not we should get into another ground war in Iraq. On one hand, ISIS has to be stopped by any means necessary. On the other, it is almost certain that this new war in Iraq will be the vietnam of the 21st century. ISIS fighters are far more trained, and better armed, then their al-qaeda/taliban counterparts.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the last war in the MIddle East that we got involved in, I think it's smart of Obama to hold out on making any major decisions on what to do with ISIL until they're absolutely sure of a strategy or plan of action so we don't end up 1 billion dollars deep and just as confused as when we started. However, I do think that the Pentagon and Obama administration should take the threat of ISIL seriously. They have more connections and more money than the Taliban did, yet it seems that we're treating them as less important. So, basically, I think they should make a well educated decision, but not take their time on it.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion ISIS needs to be treated completely differently than the previous terror groups rooted in the Middle East. The ISIS agenda is ultimately genocide, and no nation should stand for that or allow that to happen. The United States has received a surprisingly good amount of support from other nations, and frankly, the longer we wait, the more exacerbated the situation will become. The United States, amoung other nations, needs to act quickly and precisely to eliminate ISIS before they can get anymore feet in the door. Not only is the US potentially in danger from this group, but also helpless civilians throughout the Middle East. It is not a question of self-defense, it is a question of defending human rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alexa. I think that Obama is smart to hold out on making any major decisions on what to do with ISIS. On the other hand, I believe that we should begin to train the 5,000 Syrian resistance fighters. I believe that it is important to start now instead on waiting a year or even more to begin to train them. By waiting for a year or even more to begin to train them we can see the problem get even worse and need even more Syrian resistance fighters.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that is so difficult in this situation is that, as the article said, this isn't a war against just an army but against a whole movement. It is hard to stop an idea because it is easily spread. I am always against how much the US gets involved but at the same time someone has to do something. Obama is smart to not just make some aggressive unthought out decision. This situation needs a solid plan.
ReplyDeleteI think we need to take definitive action again ISIS before the situation becomes more expensive and out of control. The U.S. ends up spending billions on differing programs and which should be enacted; if we and other nations work quickly and without hesitation, I think this threat could be curved quickly, and, therefore, less expensively. However, I don't think Americans will, or should, support another war involving a lot of troops deployed in the Middle East. Training the people of this area may be a compromise for now, but more definitive steps will need to be taken.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is time for the United States to drop the role of "police of the world" and call upon the support of other nations. It is the responsibility of the world to respond to the threats of genocide because it violates every ethic choice. The Nazi party gained plenty of momentum from all of their support and ended up with genocide of Jews, homosexuals, disabled, gypsies and many more groups. ISIS may not seem like a threat like the Nazis but their intentions are similar. It may be time that the world as a whole takes a greater focus on terrorism and less time on deciding of where to outsource jobs and where to get cheap labor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Becky and think that we need to treat ISIS/ISIL's threat very seriously. I think that some kind of response is necessary, but I don't think that the United States should be solely responsible for preventing the genocide in the Middle East. I think that the United States needs to be backed by numerous other country's in order to ensure defeat of ISIS if they are going to enter the Middle East. On the other hand, I'm not sure if continuing to fight these wars is futile. The reason that some people hate Americans is because they believe it is rooted in their religion and that it is their duty to God to kill Americans. This is a mindset that is really had to change, especially when we keep using violent tactics.
ReplyDeleteWhile it seems like an agreeable thing to say, the idea that the United States should play a less significant role in world affairs is nonsensical. Under the Obama administration, the United States' global influence and relative power have been downsized to dangerously low proportions, allowing an extremist group like ISIS to succeed to the extent that it has. Other countries not only don't have the capability, but don't have the will to serve as the world's "police force," and, as Obama does ad nauseam, calling on the "international community" to resolve conflicts does nothing but exacerbate said conflicts due to the lack of leadership provided. The current "coalition" that the U.S. has assembled will not begin to make gains until we recognize ISIS for what it is: a cancer that must be exterminated. Targeted airstikes will ultimately fail to do any significant damage to ISIS's military operations, and it is beyond unrealistic to believe that 5,000 Syrian rebels and a few other local troops are going to have any effect whatsoever on a trained army of 100,000 dedicated jihadists. As the overwhelming sentiment among military leaders has implied, we are currently engaged in mission impossible. Although it may seem that Obama is simply compromising on a temporary solution, every piece of historical reference indicates that he is ideologically opposed to war, and has minimal interest in using American military power, even in order to protect innocent people around the globe and defend human rights. It is wishful thinking at best to assume that our current strategy will transform into something more meaningful, as long as Obama is the commander-in-chief. If America is serious about defeating ISIS, ground troops will be necessary. Until the people in charge accept this reality and commit themselves to achieving victory, the conflict will drag out, leaving more people dead, more land conquered by terrorists, and less geopolitical stability in the region.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Kellen said. Although it may seem idealist to expect other nations to band together with ours and forge a powerful, decision-making alliance for drastic times such as these, it is only by seeking better for the world and denying defeatist thought patterns that anybody can achieve anything. Obviously, that sort of a long term prescription doesn't solve the problem in front of the United States right now. I thought it was strange that President Obama pointed out the non-"classic war" quality of this one, because no wars have been "classic," in truth, in many, many years, and that message seemed repetitive,
ReplyDeleteAs of now the U.S is doing the right thing in handling this situation with ISIS. We shouldn't put boots on the ground to fight them after we just "got out" of two wars in the same region. The best course of action is to continue airstrikes but also give the surrounding nations the tools they need to destroy ISIS. We need to let them do what they need to do for their region not us. The U.S trying to fight a war and deiced what happens after it hasn't worked in the past and it wont work now.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if the U.S. wanted to completely wipe out ISIL quickly, we could easily invade and bomb these territories. However, this strategy is no where near the optimum technique. I agree with the Obama administrations tactic of defeating this terrorist group. It seems that we are trying to make smart, strategical decisions in which we can minimize civilian and U.S. Casualties while attacking as many ISIL members as we can.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kellen that the United States needs to lay down their police badge. This situation calls for equal support from all nations because ISIL is a threat to all nations. With out support from other countries, I think it will be hard for us to defeat ISIL. I also believe that Obama is taking the right line of action in taking time to think through strategies. Making rash decisions will only lead to more casualties.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be good if the entire free world teamed up to finally defeat terror. For whatever reason, it seems that only America is fighting this fight. If the world's strongest countries send their troops to defeat these back country lame-o's then the world would be infinitely safer. ISIS is just a group of disgusting people who have no place on this earth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiment that America needs to draw on support from other nations if ISIL is to be defeated in the most efficient way possible. The United States should not be the only one fighting this group which does have the potential to eventually become a global threat if left unchecked. Despite this, I think that it is necessary for the United States to take the lead in this assault against ISIL, as no other country has a military as powerful as the one America has. Unfortunately, in order to accomplish this goal and to take the lead in destroying ISIL, the United States may need to send in ground troops. The article did say that airstrikes were not as effective as hoped, and that ISIL is still gaining ground. It is clear that a different strategy is needed, and that may entail the deployment of ground troops. Even if it comes to this, the United States should not be alone in fighting ISIL, and I believe that it is logical and fair to propose that other nations should begin to contribute more heavily to the fight.
ReplyDeletePeace through strength. Although we should not simply invade nations on the principle of sketchy intelligence reports and fulfilling your father's legacy (yea you Dubya), we should absolutely remain a present and formidable force on the world stage. Our current foreign policy, especially towards the "Islamic State," is shameful. We drop bombs with little effect, we have a "coalition" of unwilling nations making empty promises, and a President that seems incapable of making decisions on the matter. One thing Bush Jr. had was charisma, he built a tangible coalition, Great Britain, France, Germany, hell even Romania and Japan sent troops to Iraq to aid in the fight! That is what we need. A world united against Jihad wherever it hides. ISIS is a poison, they murder thousands, enslave women and children, marry and rape prepubescent girls, and they want to bring their warped Sharia "law" to the United States. We need to LEAD the fight, and the world will follow.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, relying on the Syrian Rebels is absurd. There are major veins of extremism within the resistance movement and they are very sectarian. To arm and train such elements would be unwise (we armed and trained Bin Laden and the Taliban). In my opinion, we should do more to support the current Syrian regime of Bashir Al Assad. Although far from democratic, he has historically been a friend to the US and has a trained and equipped military currently at his disposal that we can use to combat ISIS without risking arming potential future enemies.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kellen. I am tired of the United States policing the world. It seems like these days all another nation or terror group has to do is say something about Obama’s mom and the US is involved. That being said, in this case ISIS needs to be stopped. Genocide is no joke and what we think of as a small terrorist group can easily rally support and grow through propaganda. Lastly, I agree with Noah in that we need a world united against Jihad. The world needs to put an end to terrorism.