Attackers unleashed a coordinated wave of explosions, gunfire and hostage-taking in Paris Friday night that left more than 132 people dead, more than 350 injured and generated scenes of horror. The only thing people think that will stop terrorist attacks is escalating a war with ISIS. The United States should not escalate the war with ISIS because it will cause more problems, anger will be brought down upon us, and the plan might not even work. Escalating the war will cause more problems between the U.S. and ISIS. The Islamic States threat is only growing. With that being said the more the threat keeps growing the smaller chance we have of winning. Imagine trying to invade the Islamic states, causing more danger than there already is. If we strike back at ISIS, to them there will be more of a reason to keep on threatening the U.S. Increasing the war with ISIS will have more anger brought down upon us. “The use of force has gotten us into the fix in which we now find ourselves” says John B. Quigley. Quigley knows that we got into this mess and somehow we will have to get out of it before an outrage happens unexpectedly. The Islamic State fighters want us to get angry. Once we have reached our boiling point we are going …show more content…
If president Obama wants to defeat the Islamic State group he will have to become a war leader. Putting troops on the ground is the surest way to win this war. The problem is the absence of U.S. boots on the ground changed the facts on the ground, and the Islamic State will be quick to take advantage. As they take advantage they are more than likely to win the war. Barack Obama will not be able to a military effort. Using a military effort to defeat Islamic State is not likely to work. President Barack Obama understands that if he were to proclaim a goal of definitively eliminating ISIS in the short term, he would fail. Then he would have to eat his words (Quigley,
I think we should encourage peace instead of going to war. If we encourage peace to the very dangerous rebel organization then we will not have to risk thousands and thousands of lives in the United States just because we are ally with the country of Aggressivia. So, I think the best option is to encourage peace because it will help both countrys at the same time. We woud not have to raise the taxes and make the citizens of America mad. We would not have to risk the lives of the America 's soilders.
They can drop troops off in a specific area, scout areas in a larger range, and can now drop bombs. The War on Terror is not really a direct fight. It is more of a strategy fight. There are not that many ground troops anymore, and consists more of bombing with
The rising threat of terrorism went ignored by the US government when Osama threatened use of aircraft in an attack against the US (Langley, 69), and because the US wouldn’t acknowledge this, Osama naively believed that america was weak (September 11 attacks, n.p.) and stated that it is a muslim duty to kill americans (Langley, 44), America only makes it worse by trying to kill Osama, making it look like americans really are a threat to Islam (Langley,
However, General political tactics to reduce violence and reestablish metropolitan governments in his area of operations. His foresight and cognitive reasoning of displaying generosity and decent humanity while maintaining a military authority in the area was more instrumental to the Iraqi people than imposing the United States military might. He stated, “If you don't want to have to kill or capture every bad guy in the country, you have to reintegrate those who are willing to be reconciled and become part of the solution instead of a continued part of the problem.” General Petraeus understood the key component to stabilizing not only his area of operations, but within the theater, was to empower the people in the region to govern themselves and be self-reliant.
Clear concise policy guidelines on the use of military force need to formulated. Our national interests will clash with the national interests of other countries or groups; we must be committed to following through with defending our policies, or we further loose our national
This strategy is one that calls for deterrence and the plan of containing the enemy rather than direct action. On the other hand, the War on Terror’s strategy is more closely focused in striking fast and hard before the enemy knows what is happening; in other words, their strategy is pre-emptive warfare. Destroying and disrupting the terrorist’s organizations will create a crippling effect in how they will be able to attack us and their ability to plan and operate within their organization. We will attack their leadership, communications, finances, and their control. During the War on Terror, the United States is no longer utilizing the same strategies that have been employed in the past.
A little over a year ago, over one hundred civilians were killed at an Eagles of Death Metal concert. The terrorist attack group, ISIS, claimed responsibility. There is constant fear of terrorism. It could happen anywhere, to anyone. Lately, there is a lot of hate in the world, and the United States, along with other countries need to put an end to all the hate.
This effort should also include greater involvement with Sunni tribes that were disbanded by Iraq’s government, in order to break free of Iran’s Influence and destroy ISIS. Second, we need “Consistent air power to support local ground forces”. American air power will give Iraqi and Kurdish forces and great advantage over ISIS forces, who do not possess any form of an air force for air support.
Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East. The oil that, when we left Iraq, we should have taken, now ISIS has. And what they don't have, Iran has. I want to have the strongest military that we've ever had -- and we need it more now than ever -- but I said, "Don't hit Iraq. You're going to totally destabilize the Middle East.
The Crusades and the War on Terror: two events that occurred over 900 years from each other. Whether it’s church or state calling for a war, these two events have striking similarities. On one hand, there are two armies that fought in the name of their Gods and the dominance of their religions. In more recent time, allies of the United States came together to defeat something that threatens the entire world, terrorism. Even though these two wars seem very far apart, they are similar because of the events that inspired these wars, predominantly Christian nations are fighting Muslim nations and lastly, the fact that the United States and allied nations have always tried to involve themselves in Middle Eastern affairs.
While this idea was a good one, Obama’s tactics were based on idealism and wishful thinking. This too passive approach has led to the hindrance of combatting terrorism, and the people of America are being faced with more terrorism rather than
The U.S. must cooperate with the Shi’ite Iraqi government to rebuild its military and uproot ISIS from Iraqi cities. While doing so they must be outspoken about treating Sunnis fairly so as to reduce ISIS recruiting power. In Syria ,where the majority of ISIS fighters are located, strengthening the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is the best way to push back against ISIS as well as Assad (Terrill 22). The Assad Regime of Syria “has committed the crimes against humanity of extermination, murder, rape or other forms of sexual violence, torture, imprisonment, enforced disappearance and other inhuman acts” (Ware). Aiding the Free Syrian Army will not only stop ISIS gains but also remove the repressive leader of Syria.
ISIS its basic goal is to hold on to its territory in Syria and Iraq, so why attack Paris? One explanation, according to Will McCants, is that ISIS is losing territory, According to Will McCants, (Brookings Institution), ISIS "lost something like 25 percent of their territory" since its peak last summer.
After a terrorist attack of any kind there are always consequences that must be faced. Sometimes the point of the terrorist attacks is because the organization wished to send a message or to influence policy in their favor. However, after the 9/11 attacks administrators realized that the United States was not prepared for a tragedy of this kind and had little to no measures to prevent one, this lead them to create new programs and policies. Terrorist organization’s goal often comes down to one of the following: regime change, territorial change, policy change, social control and status quo maintenance. The main purpose of a terror attack may well be to influence public policy.
At the same time, many Americans are exhausted, resigned, demoralized. Our military forces—mighty, brave, determined—were sent into Afghanistan and Iraq, two winnable wars that became quagmires. Materially, the Islamists are far weaker than the enemies we faced in World War II. Then, we eliminated the threat to our lives and freedom in less than five years. Since 9/11, however, we’ve been told that this must be a “long war.”