After class on Friday I was hung up on the idea of what the
best move is for America to make in regards to ISIS. In class, I had decided that the U.S. would
be smart to not play a very active role in Syria because we don’t want another
situation liked we faced in Iraq. But,
upon further thought I think it is inconsiderate to decide that we should not
be involved based mainly off of that reason, seeing as one of Americas main
role in the world is the spreading of democratization and protecting people
from the horrors (such as public beheadings) that have become a prominent issue
as a result of ISIS.
I believe
that it is very important for us to have soldiers on the ground there, it is
through only that method that America can personally reach not only the dangerous
front men of the operation but also the innocent victims of ISIS. Although I do fervently believe we should
send soldiers in, I also think that prior to that we take the time to map out a
course of action. For example, if we say
we plan on being there for a year and then at that point either withdrawing
troops or sending them back in. I think
the end goal should be to put someone new in office through a fair and free
election. This would show that the nation is back on the
right path and that all the citizens in the nation are able to have a say in
the government(as it should be).
I also
think it is important for The U.S. to have a plan in place if it seems that the
state will completely fail. I feel as
though even thought The U.S. should be active in helping to better the
situation there, if the government does completely collapse it is not the job
of the U.S. to build it from the bottom up.
I think if this situation were to occur the best option would be to turn
to the United Nations and have them ultimately craft a plan to re-build. If the UN were to take on this role it would
be important that the U.S. fully supported and helped to enforce plans made by
the UN. Hopefully this responsibility
would be shared with other nations willing to help. If for some reason the UN declined to take on
this kind of project, I do not think the U.S. should take on rebuilding alone
but instead should appeal to countries individually requesting help.
What is
most important is for the U.S. to not get too tied up in reputations but
instead just do what is in the best interest of mankind and the victims of
ISIS. The ideals of the United States of
America is what makes our country so unique and in the face of groups such as
ISIS, it is the job of the U.S. to do our very best to get our soldiers there
to better the situation.
I completely agree with the last part of your point, that the US should attempt to get help from the UN and if not the entire UN, individual allies. However, I maintain the opinion I held in class that if no help is being offered, the US should not conduct a full scale invasion as it did in Iraq, which is what you seem to be arguing for. Before Iraq, plans were likely proposed to withdraw troops after a certain amount of time as you have, however we see how that turned out. Iraq was very problematic for the US both in costs and public morale. I simply do not believe the US should attempt anything similar to Iraq, as you seem to be proposing.
ReplyDeleteI really like that you mentioned United Nations as allies. In my opinion, I think it is imperative to have supporters regardless of the course of action the United States takes. There are advantages when having supporters, not only does it strengthen the course of action, but it automatically incorporates back up if necessary. I also agree with your idea that the United Nations should take the role in crafting the plan so the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the United States.
ReplyDeleteSituations like this are difficult to come to a definitive answer on. While the U.S. has the means and motive to launch a full scale assault on ISIS, it has to constantly consider how the international community will react. If nothing is done, the U.S. is seen as submissive and non-committal to its obligations. If not enough is done, the U.S. will be urged to do more. But if too much is done, a repeat of the Iraq war is feared. I think your last paragraph summed it up best. The United States has a duty to aid suffering people, and may have to sacrifice its own reputation to do so. Theodore Roosevelt said it best when he said, "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."
ReplyDelete