Military Intervention In Iraq

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

In 2003 America engaged in a war with Iraq because we suspected that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. The American Federal Government did not want there to be a chance that terrorist groups could gain access to these weapons and then use them against us or some other unprepared country so President George Bush waged a war against them which was very different from our stance in World War II. During that time, we tried almost everything we could to avoid joining in the war. But after we were violently attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor, we figured there was no way to avoid going into war now. We had just cause and the necessary military forces to fight back, so we did. We joined the

The United States, with its coalition partners, has committed to degrade and destroy the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This group poses a threat to the people of the Middle East, as well as to the United States, our allies, and interests in the region. If this terrorist organization is left uninterrupted, ISIL will grow, threatening the surrounding areas of the Middle East, our allies abroad, and the United States.

So, to say that ISIS is not a direct threat and that they are merely a “worst-case-scenario” blatantly ignores the damage they have already caused to the U.S. Moreover, Sorenson includes the notes from ISIS spokesmen: “’Oh Soldiers of the Islamic State, what a great thing you have achieved by Allah!... He has healed the chests of the believers through the killing of the nusayriyyah (alawites) and rafidah (Shiites) [rejecters; those who reject ISIS’s version of radical Islam] at your hands… nothing will work with the rafidah other than slicing their throats and striking their necks’” (29). That being said, the term rafidah does not strictly apply to the alawites or Shiites, it applies to anyone who rejects the ISIS form of Islam. Moreover, another notes Sorenson includes states “We indicate that giving any kind of support to the United States, Western countries, and their allies in the region against a fighting Muslim group in the region is apostasy against the religion of God (Islam) and definite infidelity…’” (30). Therefore, it is clear that ISIS poses a threat to the United States. They do not wish to have peaceful relations with us, and the fact they have already defined punishment terms for associating with Americans does not bode well for the future of the American people.

8th, this could come at the price of developed territory for us and our allies. The U.S. governs a lot of land in the Middle East that could be easily raided by ISIS, and if we started a massive war with them they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

In the years leading up to and during the Iraq War, the United States pursued a neo-conservative agenda that aimed to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s regime, eliminate the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and install a democratic government in Iraq. To do so, U.S. policymakers deployed military forces and diplomatic ambassadors to intervene. This strategy, clearly seen during the early invasion in 2003 and the surge of 2007, produced mixed reactions. Indeed, more than a decade after the U.S. decision to mediate, the question remains: Can intervention actually work?

It has become an important target to the U.S., and has also executed multiple victims around the world. There has also been many American citizens who have been arrested for association, or becoming a part of ISIS’s plans to attack the United States. But, this is trending all around the world, and has become difficult to stop spreading. They are causing a tragic flaw in the stability of America, questioning who the true psychopaths are, and where safety lies in America. ISIS have said that they are not only planning to terrorize America, but also segregate it. On the other hand, the United States government believes that, to stop all this brutality in America, we need to cause war in their regions

Throughout the course of a relatively short history, military intervention by the United States (US) in foreign conflicts has been a calculated and intricate process. Unlike despotic nations or one party regimes whose leaders are often unelected and whose authoritarian style rulers face little political fallout from foreign military interventions, elected officials in the US are faced with prescribed rules and regulations which hold government officials liable in their desire to engage in a foreign military conflict. Even if the legal threshold to send the US military to a foreign conflict is met, elected officials in the US are still insistently consumed with how the decision is conveyed and received by the American population. For these

The use of strong forces would limit ISIS influence and prevent the spreading of this form of radical Islam over more lands and peoples (Vick). Getting involved with boots-on-the-ground warfare, we would gain greater protection of our allies, which in the future would only result in positives when dealing with trade or other issues. To move in and take out ISIS quickly would be the best for the United States as it would severely cut the number of lives lost and the amount of money spent, rather than dragging on the war by remaining politically correct with our actions (McCabe). Besides saving the lives of Americans by moving faster, we would also save more of the refugees who are still unable to leave the war-stricken area who are killed everyday by ISIS fighters moving through, specifically in Iran and Syria

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.

After the death of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of AL-Qaeda, the U.S. have finally withdrew their troops from that battle ground and brought them home. President Obama has been declaring that he would bring the troops back home and he finally has. Now faced with another threat that has claimed the U.S. as their enemy, the U.S. has been put on the edge of the national security. The question now is, ‘Should the U.S. go after this enemy after just coming back from a war?’ There are some who think that this situation should be settled with as soon as possible and some who think that this isn’t our war to fight. The U.S.

The United States should escalate the war against Isis because Isis is the threat of a bigger war, Isis wants its own country in the heart of the Middle East, and the Islamic states threat is only growing. Widen the war against the extremist group. The moment the group, also known as Isis, established a territorial state in Iraq, it posed two grave threats to the United States and its allies.

Today, people, including many I respect, are asking, "Vince, why haven 't you called for action in Aleppo?"

The Middle East has been the world’s hotspot in terms of political and armed conflict since the end of the Cold War. In the last decade, the region has witnessed the collapse of regimes that have ruled for decades one after the other, some through the intervention by foreign military force and others through revolutions. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 has become one of the most controversial events in international relations as neither the invasion nor the occupation was legal under international law and the fact that the invasion has left Iraq in a state of chaos with no bright future in sight. More importantly, the reasoning behind the intervention remains problematic as Iraq is an oil rich country, but is still struggling

U.S. will still have challenge to ensure its security of people and territories on its soil and abroad from both direct and indirect threats of ISIS, as long as ISIS is able to preserve its capacity and influence to