Summary: The President, Barack Obama, feels that the military mission on ISIS is a long-term effort through local forces and a stable government. Obama pointed to the more than 5,000 airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, Syria and new regions like North Africa, and the efforts of an impelled Iraqi government in the wake of the demolishing of Ramadi, as signs of increased effort against them. Currently, he has no plans to send more troops across to the region. He finds that security forces will be the biggest threat against ISIS. The President said success against ISIS depends on "Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, rejecting warped interpretations of Islam and protecting their sons and daughters from recruitment.” He doesn’t think we should do everything ourselves because it won’t make terms better. Obama feels that his strategy will be best at stomping out ISIS.
Questions: Do you agree with Obama’s strategy? Is the success really dependent on the Muslim communities? Does Obama even have a strategy? What should he do differently (if anything)?
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/politics/obama-isis-pentagon/
During a time in which the Islamic State is on the move to terrorize the populations of various countries, defeating it has to be done as soon as possible. The airstrikes are only minor setbacks, and the group will still operate even if a majority of their leadership is taken out. Many of the rebels the U.S. has trained are either ineffective or making slow progress, and in order to protect the people targeted by IS, boots on the ground is the only option.
ReplyDeleteObama's strategy is too reliant on the outcome of the Islamic people. His plan is too dependent on expecting them to join our cause and strike against ISIS. This plan of waiting is only going to get more innocent people killed and will never fully stop or prevent the attacks by the terrorists. I agree with James and believe the best option is on the ground and take out as many leaders as possible while being somewhat like a crusade and trying to get more people (rebels) to join our cause.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Obama's strategy. ISIS is not a domestic problem and we are not obligated to solve it for them. Although I understand the horrors of ISIS, there is not much we can do that will significantly solve the problem. It is up to the Muslim communities to rally together and invoke real change. We can help the these communities, but, at the end of the day, it cannot be our responsibility. I think the best we can do is to give the tools to assist with the solution.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to destroy ISIS through ground troops. However, while in the process of dismantling the current network of jihadism, we would just end up creating the next generation of ISIS extremists. This is precisely what happened in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and in Afghanistan, during the bloody counterinsurgency against the Taliban. In both cases, extremists have reemerged to prominence and in some areas, become even more powerful than before. The only way to destroy ISIS forever is for the locals to do it themselves and for all people to be involved in and have a stake in the governing of their own countries. At the moment, however, it is apparent that most peoples under the control of ISIS cannot defeat them without outside support. In this case, I support Obama's current strategy of airstrikes and funding moderate rebels, Kurds and the Iraqi government. Perhaps going even further, up to the point of sending in ground troops would be necessary, for this strategy has yet to dislodge ISIS from its strongholds.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably possible to defeat ISIS through ground troops and force, but that does not make it the correct way to do it. The better way is to use local groups and to aid them instead of fighting our own fight. The US is strongly disliked in the region because we always swoop in and try to be a hero when we really have no idea what we are doing and end up just fumbling around. If we partner with locals we will have their knowledge base to build upon and allies to rely on when we eventually leave.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is possible for the US to limit ISIS through the use of ground troops, it will be a very hard fight on the US. ISIS is not an easy target. In order to set troops on the group, Obama would need to insert the army with full force, launching the American way of life into pure and utter chaos. Instead, it seems much more effective and beneficial to the American people to continue the US airstrikes and aid local anti ISIS rebels.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is possible for the US to limit ISIS through the use of ground troops, it will be a very hard fight on the US. ISIS is not an easy target. In order to set troops on the group, Obama would need to insert the army with full force, launching the American way of life into pure and utter chaos. Instead, it seems much more effective and beneficial to the American people to continue the US airstrikes and aid local anti ISIS rebels.
ReplyDeleteObama's strategy does seem smart, but it is risky. Concentrated airstrikes are safe and effective, but any mistakes could have huge repercussions. If any innocent people are killed, it will just cause a new cycle of angry people that will be more likely to join ISIS. Success is only possible if they are able to spread the message that true Muslims aren't in ISIS. They need to win over the people of Syria and the Middle East in whole and that isn't possible.
ReplyDeleteThe use of ground troops could be successful in destroying ISIS, however it could be risky. In order to do this, the troops would have to be full force and we could end up causing more trouble. A good way to destroy ISIS is to get locals on bored and have them fight against them for a stronger control. So far I agree with Obama's plan of airstrikes and aid to the anti ISIS rebels.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with Obama's strategy. I think that while remaining uninvolved may seem like a good, financially beneficial and safe route, standing back and watching ISIS destroy the middle east is not a good strategy either. Relying on others such as scholars and clerics to reject ISIS' beliefs and actions is also very hard to rely on. After the attacks on Paris and the never-ending torment on other middle-easter countries, despite the cost it may put on America, I think we need to do something-not necessarily going to war with them, but becoming involved and supportive of other countries' actions and taking some of our own will make the biggest difference moving forward and trying to stop the terrors of ISIS.
ReplyDeleteAs much as i support Obama, his military plans to help defeat or at least fight ISIS are terrible. I understand that he is trying to stay as neutral as possible with the topic however doesn't want to get the united states involved in the war until absolutely necessary. It is clear that Obama wants to do something however has no plan and is confused about what the people want him to do. I think he'd better decide soon to avoid being the attack of the next example of ISIS' power.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to say whether the strategy Obama is using is successful. It does depend on communities standing against these terrorists, and we have seen many communities do this in recent years. Whether his strategy or sorts is truly successful, is dependent upon a large number of factors going his way. And while I think there might be better alternatives, there honestly isn't much he can really do differently at this point.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is possible to defeat ISIS with ground troops and force, it is not the best strategy for the US to take on. ISIS is not a domestic affair and although it is a major problem, there is not much the US can do to "solve" the problem. We can use force as our strategy but that could very likely plunge the US into another war that could endanger the lives of its citizens. I believe in Obama' s strategy to aid the ISIS rebels; the best we can do is give them the tools to assist them with the problem.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Obama's strategy will not be effective since relying on the Muslim communities in the past has not been effective in destroying radical terrorist organizations. This is due to the fear tactics that organizations such as ISIS uses in order to hold control over a region. I see solving the situation in the Middle East as futile since the U.S. is disliked by many and that our standard methods of warfare are ineffective in these areas as demonstrated in the past wars.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Kelly and Jenna. I like Obama's strategy. The US is not obligated to solve this problem of ISIS. But of course, with the horrors we hear, ISIS does become a moral and ethical issue for us but there isn't much we can do but continue with our air strikes (as Jenna said). But ultimately, like Kelly mentioned, it is up to the Muslim communities to create real change. And the US can be there on the sidelines providing the resources and support these communities need.
ReplyDelete