American Foreign Policy : The Civil War And The Conflict With Isis

United States policy towards the Iran-Iraq war was interesting to say the least. While the United States claimed to be a neutral party, they supported Iraq for the majority of the war, supported Iran for a brief period, then went back to only supporting Iraq. Both sides committed numerous atrocities and war crimes, and for the most part received little to no American condemnation. Through this essay, I will explore the reasons for the US involvement, and their responses to a number of war crimes, particularly Iraq’s use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation.

President Obama stated in his Anti-Terror Strategy address, "We continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today” (Obama).The Middle East today is composed of very complicated religious tensions, unstable states, and rising terrorist organizations. The collapse of central governments and the rise of powerful non-state actors breed problems that foreign powers and the world’s only superpower, simply should begin to address. Many argue that the involvement in the Middle East is not our problem and that it will only cause our national debt to increase. As human beings we must began to realize the crimes against humanity occurring in the region and ask ourselves one question, can we truly turn a blind eye to the hundreds of innocent people dying and at what cost? The United States of America must get involved in the Middle East to ensure justice is achieved and maintained. Our interference will decrease the chances of terrorist attacking U.S. soil, and our military involvement will save the lives of many innocent citizens caught up in the turmoil. The United States must protect its interests and allies in the region. America stands for freedom, justice, and dignity; we must take a stand to defend ourselves and those in need, if we truly want to uphold the

America is torn betwixt the dispatchment of American ground troops to fight the terrorist group Isis. The Isis ideology and vision consists of the restoration of the caliphate of early Islam and pledging allegiance to it. Isis regards to maintain the purification of Islamic society, they must fight non-Muslim countries. This desire of a pure Islamic society has precipitated harm on several non-Muslim countries, and even on their own country. The American government is considering sending our ground troops to fight Isis, however, the negatives to sending ground troops to fight Isis are monumental.

america’s involvement in syria raises complex ethical arguments. what are the challenges surrounding the moral, ethical, societal and sovereign decisions of this involvement?

The war on terror, following the events of 9/11, made people acknowledge a new form of enemy. Terrorisms became the central focus of nations and various actions were taken to ensure that such a horrendous act never transpires again. However, the problems associated with these legal constraints has led to many international law violations. This paper will seek to discuss these legal constraints and its effect on the war on terror. In order to demonstrate this, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be examined to understand whether the legal actions of the United States were appropriate and legal. The principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity are central to jus in bello (also known as “the laws of war”). These three principles are closely interconnected with one another and are necessary to determine whether a war can be perceived as being legitimate.

Likewise, there are several instances in which the Unites States has stepped in to alleviate foreign crises. Mullaney expresses that in 2014, air strikes were launched to help the Yazidi people, and other countries have agreed to help with combat, but they are waiting on America to make the move towards war; while President Obama has been submitting requests to send out troops, nothing has been approved yet (125, 128). The United States needs to have approval to launch troops to help the Yazidi people. Mullaney is insistent that the U.S. must provide more than just air strikes in order to help the Yazidis. While some feel that it is not the United States’ responsibility, ISIS cannot be stopped alone. On the contrary, the author includes

As his second term went on, President Obama was faced with crises throughout the Middle East. In Israel, hopes for a two-state solution were being questioned continually by conflicts between the Palestinians and Israelis, in Libya a military intervention created turmoil and opened territory for extremist expansion, in Syria a civil war developed, and in both Syria and the US-supported Iraq, a new terrorist regime under the name ISIS formed filling the voids left by the lack of control in the regions. In handling terrorist issues, President Obama’s policies continually failed, and slowly returned to the focus on hard, at times unilateral, power. This reluctant use of hard power was primarily done under the auspices of drone programs and special forces operations, which Masters describes as having increased throughout Obama’s years in office (Masters 2013). The policy led to momentary victories, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden. Despite this, the Obama administration continued to falter trying to appease to a diplomatic world.

In President Barack Obama’s speech addressing the action taken in Libya, he said that the United States reserves the right to unilaterally use military force to address direct threats to "our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests" (Morici). To save the collapsing rebellion, air attacks had to target Gadhafi’s tanks, artillery, motorized columns, and government installations (Hanson). The problem that Congress faces is the question of whether unilateral action is constitutional. Unilateral action

1. As our brave men and women in uniform find themselves embroiled again in a conflict in the Middle East, debate surrounding the timeliness and necessity of this second Gulf conflict has ceased in most professional circles. However, before the current conflict began, controversy raged over when and how to best prosecute this situation. Many argued that the United States should have worked through the United Nations to pursue a resolution that had the consensus of the world behind it. That endeavor, however, was doomed to failure from the start. The United States sought to solve this dilemma using military force. France and Germany desired to diffuse it using anything but force. In order to

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has permeated the minds of Americans from the right wing to the left wing. Most agree that something needs to be done to ensure the safety and security of the United States of America, but what exactly needs to be done is an entirely separate argument. If ISIS launched a series of attacks against American embassies and caused mass casualties overseas, it is the United States’ responsibility as the indispensable nation to act against the threat and for those who cannot fight for themselves. War, in this case, would be a justifiable act under the Just War Theory.

For many years ISIS has been terrorizing the East, with a few sporadic attacks in America claiming to be a part of ISIS. This has been happening alongside the Syrian civil war where ISIS is attempting to topple the Assad Shiite regime. Obama has been assisting the rebels in Syria and the fight against ISIS, but he has been reluctant to put boots on the ground. Because of the new attacks on American embassies in the East, the president has decided to militarily intervene. In accordance to Just War Theory, this plan for American military intervention against ISIS is justified on moral grounds as it follows all three parts of the theory. This is supported by the current global state and Bush’s national security strategy from 2002.

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.

There are a wide variety of arguments regarding the current conflicts in the Middle East, but one of the most heated debates is whether or not the United States should interfere. Two people with opposite opinions on the matter are H. A. Goodman and David E. Johnson. Both are professional authors, and both wrote articles on the subject of United States intervention against the terrorist organization ISIS. While Goodman’s article has a wider audience, Johnson’s article is probably more persuasive and credible.