Between conflicts with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the oppressive reign of Bashar al-Assad, the United States has been forced to create a plan for dealing with the country of Syria. With the recent rise of ISIS, there have been many conflicting viewpoints on how the United States should intervene. President Barack Obama has attempted to avoid putting United States troops in Syria to this point, but many critics believe that the only way to stop the growth of ISIS is to use the force of the greatest military in the world to its fullest extent. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has been making the rounds promoting his new book Worthy Fights, in which he describes his years as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and as the Secretary of Defense. He has strongly opposed the actions taken by President Obama, and is among those who believe that putting United States troops on the ground in Syria is the only way to stop ISIS in their tracks.
In our discussion section on Friday afternoon, we attempted to formulate a plan for how the United States should deal with the conflicts in Syria. To this point, President Obama has committed to a number of air strikes that have been largely unsuccessful. It is believed that the reason for the lack of air strike success has been due to the lack of reliable intelligence in the area. Without United States troops on the ground providing intelligence, air strike success will naturally be limited. I believe that, in order to improve the effectiveness of air strikes, the United States must send enough troops to Syria in order to gain intelligence on the ground.
However, I also believe that United States troops should not necessarily be the primary focus on the country’s efforts in Syria. Former United States President Bill Clinton made the valid point that the United States has unsuccessfully attempted to win ground wars with our troops in the Middle East over the years and that we need a different approach. While I believe that some United States troops will certainly be necessary, arming and training rebel groups and gaining support from surrounding countries has to be the main effort.
I agree with your stance that the only way the US has a chance at containing and eliminating the threat of ISIS is to focus on gaining support from surrounding countries. Now I do believe that America should be involved in this conflict because the strength of our military is one of the best chances Syria has finding a way to end this. However, I don't think America should have to go at it alone, nor do I think it would be most beneficial for anyone for that to be the plan of action. Before we can even think about eliminating the ISIS threat once and for all, we need to figure out a way to contain the threat. And the only way that can happen is by building up strength in the area by getting surrounding countries on board to help.
ReplyDeleteExactly. While gaining support from surrounding countries is absolutely necessary, the United States has the best military in the world. We can't just rely on the military capabilities of Syria's surrounding countries while our military sits at home or tends to other matters. Right now, this is the most important thing on our radar. Containing and eventually eliminating ISIS is going to be an extremely long process as it is, but it would be made even tougher and longer if the United States military doesn't have some sort of significant involvement.
DeleteZack, as we discussed in class, I completely agreed that placing a time limit on our involvement in Syria is simply unrealistic, as we currently have very limited information on the Islamic State and how they will evolve in the future. Though stopping their growth is, of course, one of our country's major priorities, I believe we must still not forget about other ventures we have previously invested ourselves in, as well. Domestic issues are also something we cannot lose sight of. If we focus too much on too many things, and, for example, put troops on the group in Syria, we will lose all of our efforts. I agree with you that right now, obtaining more information on the Islamic State is key. However, if we can find another way to do that without putting troops on the ground there, I believe that would be the best solution at this point in time.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with putting ground troops in Syria seeing as it will only escalate the conflict. ISIS is a small group that has little power relative to the US. If the US were to completely pull out right now, they would not be able to grow in power as effectively since they would lose the "enemy" they use to recruit. ISIS is such an extreme group that they have even been rejected by al-Qaida. The do not have the mean to hold on to power on their own and their reign will be short lived if they even succeed in increasing their hold on the region. I think escalating the conflict will only make matters worse and end in more deaths for a minimal gain.
Delete