Obama's offer arose from expectations that Abadi would request for additional help in US weaponry, although Abadi did not do so. Obama continues to believe progress has been made in the Islamic State conflict, but there is still more to be resolved. Such a proposal will extend U.S. involvement in this conflict, presenting the U.S. as more of a target to IS attacks and submerging more of the U.S. investment in this overseas conflict.
Do you think Obama made the right choice in extending aid to Iraq, in other words was this aid necessary? What could this mean for our state or economy?
2 comments:
I think this is a great step forward in regards to our role in the Middle East. The United States has slowly begun to realize that this whole "World's Policeman" act is no a viable course of action. The only way for the US to stop ISIS and any other organizations like it in the future, is to build an Iraq that can take care of itself. A stronger self sufficient Iraq would be a more stable and reliable ally in the future. In terms of cost, this aid deal is practically nothing compared to the resources we are already pouring in there, or what we expected he would ask for, let alone our national budget. Even if it was a more substantial amount, a stabilized Iraq would be a giant step forward for peace and human rights in the region.
I think that this aid is important, as it is humanitarian aid. It is for the civilians who have been displaced by IS. There are so many people affect by this horrible war, I think it is good the US is lending a hand to those who are suffering. There are many more across the Middle East who have fled from Iraq and Syria, which is engaged in a longer more complicated war.
I agree with Antony that empowering the Iraqi army is best. We have learned, however, that takes lots of time, and careful withdrawal.
Post a Comment