Whether you support the involvement of the U.S. Government
in the Syria crisis or not, it is clear that something needs to be done. Just
today it was announced, that the U.S. would be deploying fifty members of U.S.
Special Operations Forces into Syria. These Operators will be deployed to the
northern region of Syria to train and in some cases, with the approval of
Washington, fight alongside Syrian rebel forces. The president also ordered A10
and F15 fighters to near by Turkey.
With these actions, it is discernable that the White House
was beginning to feel the pressure of the Syrian conflict. Sending the
operators and fighter planes has been the most significant effort by the U.S.
to date. The White House has stated that its strategy in Syria has not changed.
Is there a strategy? Does not having a strategy, classify as having a strategy?
Is this gesture by the U.S. too little, too late? I would argue that it is indeed
far too little and far too late. With
Russia’s behavior seemingly to be aiding Assad’s power rather than fighting
ISIS, and its suspicious bombing patterns in Syria, the U.S. needs to make a
bigger move. Fifty operators are just not enough to put a significant stop to
ISIS. The U.S. government needs to come up with a more encompassing plan, one
that includes more troops than just a mere fifty operators. ISIS is a global
threat, growing larger in numbers and destructive capabilities by the day.
In my opinion these actions, or lack of actions make our
President seem weak in the eyes of our enemy. It reinforces the idea that the
President has no intention of eliminating ISIS, and is simply riding the clock
out. Lacking an effective plan for
eradicating ISIS also demonstrates to our allies that the United States of
America is unreliable.
Although I agree that there must be something done to stop the growing global threat that is IS, I do not believe in the opinion that President Obama is appearing weak to our enemies. Whether he increased ground troops to 30,000+ in Syria (which he just sent 3,000+ "advisors" to Iraq) it would not matter to the enemy. Death does not scare them. The West is weak to them regardless. In 2009 I was a part of a 30,000 troop insurgency in Afghanistan, which the majority went to the southeast region of the country, and for the most part the mission did nothing. It led to more soldier deaths in a 6 month period than the entirety of the campaign up to that point. There were 3 Medal of Honor recipients and their campaigns occurred between June and November 2009. It was the equivalent of sticking a branch in a beehive and shaking it. You stir up more recruits and actually make the force stronger, you CANNOT eradicate these forces by sheer bombs and troops. We did not eradicate all of the German, Italian, and Japanese people on the way to our victory in World War II. What we did do was make them surrender. The IS, Al-Queda, and Taliban will never surrender.
ReplyDeleteSo what do we do? Well it takes a global effort and it is extremely delicate. It's not as easy as just saying, "Our president is weak and we need more bombs and troops." It takes a global effort from a growing core of allies. I don't have the answers, but as you can see we have had thousands of troops, tanks, air raids, drone strikes, and lives spent, and the result has been nil in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like how you are one of the few people that say we need to get more involved instead of being more pacifistic. I believe the US, being the policing country it likes to be, has to make a strong decision on what needs to be done over there. On one hand we can do nothing and let the region balance itself out. That may result with our enemy eventually gaining power in the region thus allowing them to accomplish their hateful goals towards the west. On the other hand, we can plan ahead how we are going to prevent that from happening by getting involved in the least detrimental way possible in terms of lives and resources.
ReplyDeleteOne thing the media fails to mention is what causes the ISIS to fight. You have to wonder why any organization would provoke world powers such as Russia or the West to eradicate them off the face of this earth. This can be explained in a prophecy that was foretold by their prophet Muhammad. Like a holy story out of the bible, they believe that they must wage war with the Romans (Christians or 'nonbelievers') and end their holy war at a fateful showdown at the city of Dabiq. Muhammad predicts when this happens, Jesus will come down from heaven and rid the world of all non-believers, in turn beginning a new world nation of Islam. This extremist viewpoint is what has given ISIS so much power to wage war in the name of jihad.
With this bit of knowledge in mind, we can see that these extreme jihadists have only one end goal in mind and that is to rid the world of non-Muslims or die trying. It begs the question, what should we decide on as a nation to do with these malicious individuals.