This week, the Obama administration is expected to send in a request for an AUMF against ISIS, in light of recent terrorist attacks in Paris. The AUMF proposed by Obama allows ground troops to be planted in certain scenarios, but it prohibits the use of "enduring offensive ground forces". The previous draft of the AUMF outlined the use of ground troops for specific operations, but many politicians running for the presidency are advocating for a different AUMF. Many contenders for the presidency were questioned this week on their stance on the current AUMF, and conflicting views were offered. Many of the candidates hold the unifying view that the United States will have to involved in some manner in the Middle East to end the terrorism of ISIS. However, the degree of involvement varies by candidate. Lindsey Graham argues that the issue with ISIS cannot be resolved without American troops being deployed in the Middle East, whereas Marco Rubio is in favor of pursuing an international coalition with the support of Iraqi and Kurdish forces. While the plans offered by each candidate were non-specific, none of the candidates have ruled out the use of ground forces in the Middle East.
Do you agree with the political leaders that American military involvement is required? Why do you think all the candidates believe military involvement is the key to ending terrorism? What level of military involvement do you think is appropriate? Do you think their responses were formed too quickly (do we have all the facts)?
ISIS has been escalating its presence in Europe with the recent string of terrorist threats and offensives. It has become evident that airstrikes in the Middle East are no longer enough to put a hold on ISIS activities and expansion, and that a military force must be present on the ground in order to effectively root out these terrorist groups. Ideally, a coalition force would be deployed in the Middle East, where a US military presence would be used to supplement each country's own armed forces.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the US should team up with Russia and Syria, as well as France who has already attacked ISIS. It should be a low key "war", meaning that each country should have a limited number of troops fighting. With all these countries it could easily become the next world war; however, if the US does nothing and tries to solve this civilly, then a terrorist attack could happen in the US and people will be upset that we didn't stop them earlier.
ReplyDeleteI think we (the US) will have to get involved eventually in order to solve the ISIS problem. ISIS has become too big of an organization to be combated by forces only in the middle east. The US needs to be involved. However, it is hard to justify deploying Americans to fight because we have not declared war.
ReplyDeleteI think we (the US) will have to get involved eventually in order to solve the ISIS problem. ISIS has become too big of an organization to be combated by forces only in the middle east. The US needs to be involved. However, it is hard to justify deploying Americans to fight because we have not declared war.
ReplyDeleteI think that we will eventually have to use military forces if we want to end ISIS once and for all, however I do not think we should move so quickly to move forces into the middle east. We need to make sure we have all of the facts before we cause another dumb war. I think that all of the candidates think military involvement is required because that is what the majority of Americans think, and they want to get the citizens' support.
ReplyDeleteThe US will have to get involved in finding a way to stop ISIS. ISIS is becoming a larger organization too large to be fought off by the armies in the Middle East. We have not yet declared war, so we cannot really justify why we are deploying American soldiers to fight.
ReplyDeleteEventually, I believe the US will need to get involved if we want to stop ISIS for good. However, I think we should know all the details before we pursue anything in the Middle East and make some rash choices. If we do not do anything soon enough ISIS could attack the US, if we team up with other countries and fight ISIS it would be a much easier battle, but we need to know the facts first and not rush into anything.
ReplyDeleteThe United States will eventually have to get involved via military force with ISIS in the middle east. ISIS has become too powerful and is starting to pose a threat to US safety on our own soil. We need to stop them immediately before the issue balloons anymore. I am all in favor of the US teaming up with our allies all around the world, and sending a massive military force into the middle east and completely wiping ISIS out.
ReplyDeleteBecause Isis has been increasing their terrorist actions, use of military forces is inevitable. I think the candidates all believe military involvement is the key because of the extreme measures that Isis has been taking. The issue has gone beyond peace keeping tactics (because there is no longer peace). However, just because all the candidates want to go to war does not mean that is the right thing to do. Because they are all running to be elected as President, their intentions are biased towards what the public favors, making their responses too quick and without all the facts.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Republican candidates and FOX news, whatever Obama is doing is wrong, so let's start with that as a baseline assumption. However, as bad as it might be for America in terms of saving face in the region, the best course of action may be to not deploy troops, or possibly limit support to neighboring Iraq, Jordan, or Kurdish forces. Now that Russia is intensifying its combat operations in wake of the plane bombing, the US will need to cooperate with Russian (and possibly soon Chinese) forces in order to conduct effective operations in Syria without sparking another World War. Unless the Republicans are okay with that, the US should relax its role and let Russia sort things out.
ReplyDeleteI agree that military involvement is required because of the amount of power that ISIS has and the fact that they are not willing to negotiate with anybody. All candidates believe that military involvement is necessary to end terrorism because groups like ISIS only fight with violence, and because they are so threatening and have shown what they are capable of, so there is no other way to put a stop to terrorism. I think that we should not put boots on the ground yet but first it is important to establish a strong military core between countries opposing ISIS.
ReplyDeleteIn complete agreement with Ben, communicating and collaborating with fellow victimized countries will be essential in a successful defeat of ISIS. Like the political leaders, I believe it is important for US to be involved in combating ISIS, yet we must use our utmost patience to correctly and intelligently strategize a plan, in order to prevent "another dumb war" (as Lucy referred to Iraq). And although we are hesitating to put "boots on the ground," we have to react (fairly urgently) to the fact that ISIS's war tactic is solely violence. However, with major countries such as France and Russia, we can unify, gain power, and effectively put an end to ISIS.
DeleteThe amount of violence happening on the opposite side of the world is increasing and increasing, so does that mean the America should interject itself even more? Increasing the amount of troops we place on the ground is asking for more lives to be spent fighting a war that isn't necessarily the US'. While I don't oppose the US wanting to partake in the front against terrorism, the amount of forces being spent by the countries in the middle east and Europe already outnumber the amount of forces the US could supply. The US should limit itself to providing support rather than being on the front lines since it hasn't exactly reached their lands just yet. I do not oppose or support the actions that Republicans deem fit, however I ask that they think more carefully before resulting straight into violence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the political candidates in the sense that the U.S. will eventually have to get involved in order to solve the ISIS issue. Because ISIS is a terrorist group, the political candidates plan of fighting them by getting our military involved. Fighting violence with violence seems to be the only reasonable way to end this problem because it's unlikely that anyone will be able to convince ISIS to peacefully negotiate with them. And (although it's extremely unlikely) even if we are able to get ISIS to negotiate, there's no way that the agreement reached will equally benefit both sides.
ReplyDeleteIt has become clear that our tactics to stop ISIS so far have failed. We need to increase military involvement in the area, but I also believe it is necessary to team up with Russia, Syria, and France in order to defeat them. We cannot fight against such a powerful organization without the support of other countries. The US must unite with the other victims of ISIS in order to bring it down.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that at least some level of military involvement is necessary. I think it would be best if an international coalition is formed with our allies in the Middle East, and the amount of American troops are limited. The candidates are all in favor of military involvement because they are trying to appeal to fearful citizens, and by being strongly in favor of military involvement, it makes them seem strong and determined.
ReplyDelete