Summary:
President Obama insists that his tactical airstrike offense is the “strategy that will ultimately work”. Obama is continually taking heat for his timid response to the barbaric attacks of ISIS even though he believes that he is taking the right course of action. According to Obama the airstrike approach has been effective in taking out key members of the terror groups leadership, and that putting more “boots on the ground” would be a mistake.
Question: Should Obama fold under the pressure to generate a more aggressive response towards the ISIS attacks, or maintain his position that the airstrikes will be more effective in the long run?
The limited bombing campaign that we are currently engaged in, as well as our attempts to train local rebels, will not result in a positive outcome in the near future, which is a problem since this threat needs to be destroyed as soon as possible. Bombing strategic locations and high-ranking officers of ISIS will only deal minor blows to their cause, and the group will not suddenly fall apart just because their leadership has been taken out. In addition, the collateral damage that has resulted from the bombing, which includes the deaths of civilians, can be used by IS to garner more support for their cause. Obama seems to be afraid of starting another long-drawn war similar to what we've participated in the past and that his "legacy" will be stained as him being a warmonger, and therefore is reluctant to deploy ground troops in a large-scale invasion. However, all-out war is really the only option we have, given the sudden rise in danger posed by IS.
ReplyDeleteThe limited bombing campaign that we are currently engaged in, as well as our attempts to train local rebels, will not result in a positive outcome in the near future, which is a problem since this threat needs to be destroyed as soon as possible. Bombing strategic locations and high-ranking officers of ISIS will only deal minor blows to their cause, and the group will not suddenly fall apart just because their leadership has been taken out. In addition, the collateral damage that has resulted from the bombing, which includes the deaths of civilians, can be used by IS to garner more support for their cause. Obama seems to be afraid of starting another long-drawn war similar to what we've participated in the past and that his "legacy" will be stained as him being a warmonger, and therefore is reluctant to deploy ground troops in a large-scale invasion. However, all-out war is really the only option we have, given the sudden rise in danger posed by IS.
ReplyDeletePutting boots on the ground is a knee jerk reaction to the recent attacks in paris and will leave us in a war that no one should be fighting except the countries directly affected. Continued airstrikes, if planned well, should be more than suitable for the US involvement in the middle east.
ReplyDeleteI think that Obama should fall into pressure because putting boots on the ground is the only way they will be able to eliminate ISIS with very minimal dead civilians. Although it is highly controversial it would be the most effective if the primary goal is to eliminate ISIS. If we are trying to get rid of ISIS while still retaining a high number of US soldiers airstrikes may be the only reasonable way. However, any way we decide to do it, we will lose US soldiers regardless.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Obama should hold his stance on his airstrikes. As he is nearing the end of his term, he is willing to take risks as long as he feels suitable. I think that he was right in that sending more ground troops would also put our soldiers at risk, and that is not a risk that he is willing to take. However, he is willing to bet that the airstrikes will be more effective in the long run. If he deploys more ground troops, he might be known as the president who prolonged the war with ISIS by not taking greater action. The airstrikes are his hope that he can actually make a greater impact.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Obama needs to find a middle ground. He should continue his less aggressive response on taking down ISIS while trying to send some boots on the ground. This way the soldiers can attempt to weave out the good and the bad. By doing so they can put all the good in one place to reduce the amount of civilian casualties. If America still wants to be considered the leader or powerhouse out of all the countries then we should indeed take a more aggressive response.
ReplyDeleteI think Obama should take the advice of the nation and listen to what the people are saying. ISIS has proven that they mean business many different times by attacking countries who tried to remain neutral to the situation however seem to become more aggressive. If Obama doesn't take action who's to say that the United States won't be the next topic of an attack?
ReplyDelete