In the past month, the US has assisted the Kurdish and Iraqi military forces in their fight against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which is not a recognized state and is an enemy of Iraq). America's military has launched "more than 130" airstrikes against ISIS. Today, Obama announced a plan for the US to take an offensive against ISIS, with an intent to "systematically degrade their capabilities" and to "reduce the territory they control".
Currently, Obama has no plan to put ground troops into the fight against ISIS. On the subject of ground troops, he said "this is not the equivalent of the Iraq War." Besides not using ground troops, this military offensive will differ from the Iraq War in that the US has indisputable evidence of wrongdoing by ISIS (notably executions of US journalists).
Questions:
1. US attempts to defeat opposing governments in the Middle East have historically led to much anger against the US for playing "world police." However, many Islamic states support this effort against ISIS. Does the US stand to gain diplomatically from its efforts?
2. Using airstrikes saves the lives of many US soldiers would otherwise risk being killed in combat. However, airstrikes are imprecise and inevitably end up killing civilians, as was seen in Gaza. Is it ethical for the US to use them in this situation?
Sources:
BBC
New York Times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The ISIS situation, in my opinion, is s very scary one because of its possibility of becoming a full-fledged war. The US has had a lot of trouble with conflict in the Middle East, to put it lightly, in the past decade and so Obama's movement against ISIS is stepping into murky waters. I do think that action is necessary due to the horrible brutality against the US journalists but how much action is too much action? In terms of your first question, I do think that since the US has been on such uneven footing with Syria and Iraq, again to put it lightly, fighting on their behalf could definitely improve relations with them and lead to diplomatic success where there hasn't been for a very long time, if really ever. However, it is essential to realize the risk of getting too involved and it essential that the possible pros outweigh the very possible cons that could take place. In my opinion, I think that the US should continue where they are in terms of fighting ISIS but any escalated response should be avoided for fear of another war. Diplomacy is important, but not worth the possibility of thousands of young American's lives lost in a war.
I think that diplomatically the US has a lot to gain. The US, as a world power, cannot stand aside and watch as thousands of innocent people are slaughtered, including the beheadings of Americans. The world expects us to react and show our strength. Looking back at history, our involvement in WWII gained the US much respect. I believe that if we were involved earlier in WWII, it would have ended earlier. We cannot make the same mistake of waiting. ISIS wants world domination.
In regards to airstrikes, I do not think the Gaza airstrikes can be compared to America’s capability. We have the intelligence to pinpoint our targets, avoiding as many civilian casualties as possible. Therefore, I think we should continue the airstrikes.
Post a Comment