The Improvised Explosive Device ( Ied ) Essay

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

The withdrawal of US forces from Iraq was a contentious issue in the 24/7 news cycle of American media. As the war progressed from its initial invasion phase in 2003 to a nearly decade long occupation, American public will shifted towards favoring a troop withdrawal. In May 2007, 55 percent of Americans believed that the Iraq war was a mistake and 51 percent of voters favored troop withdrawal. In late April 2007, Congress coddled to the voter will by passing a supplementary spending bill for Iraq. This set a deadline for troop withdrawal, thus evaporating our codified end state. At that moment President Bush had a pair of balls and vetoed this bill, citing concerns about setting a withdrawal deadline. The Bush Administration ultimately bent over to public will and sought an agreement with the Iraqi government, in 2008 President Bush signed the US/Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last US troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement. US Forces resumed air operations in Iraq in June 2014, to defend against ISIL. Again the will of the people outweighs the greater good and alters the strategic level direction. Had we stayed the course and adhered to our original end state, I believe ISIL would

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

In 2005, the Iraqi war was one of the worst times to be in Iraq for the United States Military. The number of IEDS have increased and become more dangerous as the Iraqi insurgents started to

With numerous opinions regarding whether the United States should continue airstrikes, re-send troops, or go another route, it is difficult to resolve the situation. Former Michigan representative Kerry Bentivolio’s thoughts that the removal of the United States’ troops from Iraq allowed the militant group easier access to overthrow the government is shared by many conservatives. Bentivolio (2009, para. 10) said in his address to congress

America is under attack, not from an enemy in a faraway land, but here at home, by our own government. In the current year 2010, almost 7 years after "shock and awe" campaign that officially started the war in Iraq, the U.S. government fails to recognize that our efforts in the Middle East have plateaued, and it is time to bring our troops home. The surge campaigns in recent years were felt by many, to be an unofficial recognition that the war is not going well, and several top generals have had high hopes for this military strategy, but compelling evidence concludes this was a short-lived success. No one can deny the financial toll the Iraq war has had on America, for America is in the middle of one of the worst economic crisis in recent

Per resent research some forms of aggression can be linked to substance abuse. The study was made by Emil Coccaro, MD, and colleagues. The study consisted of over 9,000 subjects in the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS). The NCS is a national study base that covers mental heath in the United States. The people used in this study were mostly diagnosed with “Intermittent Explosive Disorder,” also known as IED.

Most bomb threats are received by telephone, with some received by note, letter or e-mail. All bomb threats should be taken seriously and handled as though an explosive were in the building. Although most bomb threats are hoaxes designed to cause alarm and disruption, “no call or threat should be disregarded.” Prince Williams County Police Department has the responsibility to respond to suspected bomb threats that may occur in the county. It is the goal of the police department that we protect our citizens and emergency response personnel from injury.

Us et al after second use if three or more authors, also put period after et al. and a comma after authors name ex (smith, 2003)

As coalition forces deployed their new counter IED equipment, insurgent forces began to adapt their methods of attack. The changes in insurgent tactics, and resulting increased casualties on the battlefield, directed a new approach to the counter IED struggle. Beginning in 2007, the US and its allies shifted their counter IED strategy from exclusively IED response operations to a more holistic systems analysis and defeat construct (Moulton, 2009). Two critical elements needed to be developed to enable the success of this new policy. First, coalition forces needed a way to positively identify individuals in a barely functioning society. Identity documents were often nonexistent, or forged, and many of Iraq’s millions of citizens shared similar names. This requirement drove the development of a national identity database that would allow for the electronic collection and dissemination of iris, fingerprint and occasionally DNA information (Beehner, 2007).

The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) program differ from a normal procurement program by being a relatively available commercial off the shelf (COTS) vehicle, senior leadership involvement, and ample funding. The MRAP program acquisition methodology should not be repeated for other major defense acquisition programs. Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) became a wicked problem for the U.S. military in Iraq, especially for the ground forces. The MRAP program was a leadership driven, a partial operational solution, not a strategic solution. Accordingly, the MRAP program showcased positive and negative effects of a rapid acquisition process. Strategic leaders must allow operational and tactical leaders to define requirements. Strategic leaders should establish prioritization of

The Bush administration justified its military invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the practical considerations of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and their acquisition by terrorist groups, and the long-term prospects of Middle East peace resulting from the establishment of a functioning democracy within the region. US leaders began to emphasize arguments regarding the spread of democracy during the early phases of the occupation when purported links between terrorist organizations and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program reflected questionable intelligence analysis. According to proponents who asserted a democratic domino theory, the example of Iraqi democracy would ultimately result in a peaceful and secure Middle East as other

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created

In the days following September 11, 2001, Americans faced an onslaught of headlines designed to generate fear and outrage regarding the terrorist group Al-Qaeda and Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. These fears were only heightened when President George W. Bush declared war on Iraq on March 20, 2003, with the intentions of “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country” despite the tyrannical rule imposed by Saddam Hussein (“George W. Bush: Announcement”). For the next eight years, Americans lived in an era of anger and confusion regarding the intentions behind the war that dramatically changed life in the United States. The Iraq War greatly affected American domestic policies, causing conflict between the Executive and Legislative

In the early stages of the war on terror the United States military flooded the Middle East with equipment that had not been updated since Desert Storm. Troop carriers and up armored Humvees were flown in to the Middle East along with being sent by naval vessels to accomplish the mission at hand. However, with the changing of times the opposing forces and tactics adapted to impact the US-led invasion. The outdated equipment of yesteryear was causing catastrophic casualty rates at levels never seen before. An innovative enemy was created, the improvised explosive device (IED). With this undeniable threat, a change needed to be employed immediately to increase the survival rate