American Military Intervention Against Isis

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

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

Before waging a war, it is always a good idea to think of what the possible outcome could be in the situation; to look ahead before making an unalterable, life-changing move. In many cases, different people, not just religious, think of the Just War Theory as a plausible cause to take a look at before sending troops to fight a war that deem not necessary to be fought. In the fall of 2001, September 11, it was a day in infamy, a day that will always be remembered. Terrorist members attacked the United States through different tactics, and led to an almost never ending difference between the nations. Just War is the theory that war must have a just cause, which means force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil. It must also have the right intention, which means that force may be used only for that purpose, only to correct a wrong doing. It must have legitimate authority: only public authorities and officers have the ability to wage the war. It must have comparative justice which means that the goods must outweigh the bads, no matter how bad the other side hurt you. The probability of success must weigh in to it. How it will be effected overall- how much destruction is expected, how the goods are weighed out by the bads, etc. And finally, is it a last resort. That being said, force can only be used after there have been peaceful alternatives. All of that being said, the question of the United States being sent

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.

ISIS is a terrorist group and will keep doing what they are doing and will not stop. The brutality of the Islamic State knows no limits. The mission of ISIS is to annihilate all Christians and all people who do not bow down to the caliphate. They will behead anyone who goes against what they believe, including little children and Americans. ISIS will take little boys and train them into killers just by the age of eight. How scary is that? You go out to fight a war against these people and you see a little eight-year-old boy holding an AK-47. It makes you not even think twice about who ISIS really is and what they are really wanting to do with the world. They will not stop until everyone is under their power. They will only get bigger from here and on and the United States needs to realize

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

In recent months, the United States accompanied with several allies have been forging a fight against ISIS in Iraqi and Syria. The allied troops have been extremely successful in wreaking havoc against the enemy–killing ISIS fighters, reducing ISIS cash flow, and causing the group to abandon a large portion of their controlled areas. There are approximately 5,000 American troops at any given time in these territories and President Obama wants and intends to deploy more. The United States should not send more troops to fight against ISIS because, we were just involved in the Iraqi War, home soil will be left vulnerable, and intervening doesn't always lead to benefit.

The U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 signifies the most extensive use of force by any state since the Persian Gulf War more than two decades ago. Following these operations, many commentators have suggested that there has been a notable transformation in international law regarding state responsibility for terrorist acts. This essay aims to argue that such change has been significant and it has satisfactorily countenanced states’ response to terrorism by presenting evidence of new state practice plus opinio juris in this area. To do so, this essay will first discuss the controversial concept of terrorism and its relevance to the legal framework for the use of armed force in international law. From here, it will move to explicate the principles of and grounds for state responsibility as well as to debate that the act of providing a safe haven for terrorist non-state actors should be considered as a revolutionary factor to the concept of attribution. Lastly, this essay will examine the recent changes occurred in customary law on state responsibility in the light of the application and interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter after the events of September 11. All these aspects will demonstrate that not only has the law on state responsibility had noticeably developed and consequently provided states with adequate legality to react to the challenges posed by contemporary terrorism, but it has also begun to inaugurate binding

In order to formulate a policy against ISIS, there must to be an understanding regarding how ISIS came to be and what its motives are. ISIS is a terrorist organization that began as al-Qaeda in Iraq. In time, ISIS split from al-Qaeda for ideological differences, mainly because ISIS wanted to control large areas of land in order to establish a caliphate. In the past year ISIS became increasingly violent, and started being stricter with the regions they hold under their control, such as beheading people, and burning them alive. Now ISIS controls an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom in Iraq and Syria. ISIS’ main objective is to establish a caliphate where they can follow Islam to its strictest interpretation.

In this essay I will prove why America must intervene and eliminate ISIS because ISIS is inhumane. ISIS consistently and systematically defies international law. ISIS controls governmental operations and oil land in iraq. Imagine a group of men walking into a concert and firing upon everyone in their sight for no apparent reason. ISIS has spread like a wildfire all over the world, doing whatever it takes for them to prove that they can't be stopped. In this essay it will be explained why ISIS needs to be eliminated and taken control of. Three key points will be talked about and discussed.

be presented and examined to determine the best course of action to decisively eradicate the

President Obama stated that, “[ISIS is] not an existential threat to us. They are vicious killers and murderers who perverted one of the world’s great religions” (Obama, 2016). ISIS resembles a typical state instead of a terrorist organization, through holding territory and region-specific revenue sources (Crawford, 2003). The president’s decision to start a ground offensive against ISIS illustrates the greatest show of force in modern history. While the reasons for going to war are just, the mission 's low chance of success makes the war morally unjust. The ground invasion has too many moral obstacles and would further risk destabilizing the region. The United States could not peacefully end the mission due to regional religious and cultural problems. The United States stands as a legitimate authority and has a just cause for initiating war. Yet, the inability to install a friendly regime in the region and the lack of coalition forces invalidates moral reasoning for the war. The plan for American military intervention against ISIS cannot be morally justified and would forever hurt America’s standing as a legitimate authority. The Just War Theory dates back to the 5th century and defines the guidelines for justly conducting war. Just War consists of three parts: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum (Moser and McDonald, 2016a). The ground invasion against ISIS violates principles from all three components.

Imagine a country that is run by insane government officials with a military consisting of blood crazed and psychopathic soldiers who conquer land by force and murders anyone that does not agree with their values or beliefs. You might think that this thought could be the center of a suspenseful film, but sadly this is a case that takes place right now in reality. One could compare these actions to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or the Soviet Union but those countries are long gone and are not committing such crimes today. Right now, at this moment, today’s “Nazi Germany” is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, more commonly known as “ISIS”, is the country that is committing war crimes, violating international law, and promotes rape and sexual slavery today at this very moment. Therefore, I believe it is the United States’ duty and moral obligation to launch a full-scale military ground force to fight and eliminate all forces of the Islamic State.

Excluding the first options, second and third option present a posibility in implementation. The second method ‘military intervention, cooperation with Kurdist and providing aid for Syrian refugee’ mentions UN Security Council, NATO and regional or Middle East countries should intervene in Syria by military tool that relevant to the permission of use of force. According article 2 (1) in chapter I: purposes and principles of UN charter, The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. That means UN members must respect sovereignty of each other. In this case, ISIS is on Syrian territory. As in the article 2 (1) chapter I of UN charter, the intervention in Syria can be

On the surface, the point of raging war seems pretty self-explanatory; to defeat the opposition and regain whatever was thought to have been taken away. Creating massive amounts of destruction against an enemy is a tactic that has been used frequently throughout history, often with negative results. Sadly, we are often driven by many factors that are compiled to create this outcome. It is crucial to foresee the implications that such actions can generate. Taking a step back and delving into our shortcomings as a nation is helpful in illuminating why we have gone to war in the past, and why it must not be considered as an option to combat ISIS.