The Islamic State Of Iraq And Syria

Islamic States of Iraq and Sham ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Islamic State, Da’ish is an active group formed c. 2014. ISIS is a terrorist group that sole purpose is pushing their beliefs on others and if their religion isn’t accepted in the appropriate way (how they expected) they then result to violence. Da’ish is the official name of the terrorist group known as ISIS, dramatically arrived and shocked many people in the West. The horrifying and violent events that have occurred since the appearance if ISIS struck fear into the hearts of people all across the world. Even though fear is an extreme emotion, the hatred that came with it is even stronger and is more Ernest.

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

President Obama’s strategic plan in Iraq and Syria is to continue Airstrikes to slow the forward progression of ISIS, while utilizing deployed U.S. service members to work with coalition partners to assist with partner building capacities. These partners include “Iraqi Security Forces, Kurdish Peshmerga forces, and moderate Syrian fighters, and both Sunni and Shia militia groups.”3 To be successful in this endear as mentioned by Sec Carter, “the only way to have a lasting defeat of ISIL is to have someone who can govern and secure territory once ISIL is defeated, a local force on the ground. That 's why the strategy calls for the United States to help train and equip, and then help enable local ground forces.”4 Without basic security the Government of Iraq (GOI)

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.

Everyday innocent people are dying for no reason. A rising terrorist group called Isis is responsible for this and they need to be stopped.A group called Isis has been active since 1999 but most recently has seen a huge growth. So far little has been to stop them and it is time to do more about it. I’m not talking about more air strikes it is time to step up our game and send ground troops to defeat these monster once and for all. Isis is responsible for many death and many horrific terrorist attacks. According to a CNN poll 68% say America's military response to the terrorist group thus far has not been aggressive enough. In this paper we will look at that America thinks it time to send ground troops, how people don't think Obama doing enough, and finally all the harm Isis is doing.The U.S need to send ground troops to fight Isis.

Absent compelling evidence of significant Iraqi involvement with the al Qaeda network or the events of September 11, the likely costs and risks of a commitment of American military forces to a regime-change campaign in Iraq would outweigh the benefits. A U.S. overthrow campaign would entail a large-scale military operation that the United States would probably have to undertake essentially alone; the increased risk of triggering terrorist attacks against American or allied targets; significant American casualties given the potential for intense urban combat and Iraqi use of chemical and biological agents; and the likely need for a long-term American military presence in Iraq to avoid regional destabilization. While these costs and risks are not so high as to rule out a possible overthrow policy under certain circumstances, they should be sobering to any advocate of sending U.S. troops to war to change the Iraqi regime. The central assumption behind this argument is that Saddam—unlike the religiously motivated Taliban/al Qaeda network—is more interested in

For the past few years, the terrorist group ISIS has made headlines around the world with their acts of terror and rapid spread. Naturally, people all over the Earth have called for the obliteration of ISIS, and many have looked to the US for action. The question that prevails the most: should the US put soldiers in Syria to try and directly destroy this radical terrorist group? The safest, most reliable answer is an emphatic no, the US should not put "boots on the ground" against ISIS.

If it is accepted then, that Washington should have taken stronger action earlier in the conflict, the question becomes whether there are any practical, more decisive approaches that could have been employed earlier in the war to greater success. This essay examines three alternative measures that could have been adopted by the US at the outset of the conflict, in light of existing commitments, foreign policy and attitudes. The most controversial option is direct military intervention. Current American-led airstrikes have exclusively focused on ISIS, however, the current Russian intervention can provide clues as to whether earlier American air strikes against Assad would have impacted the conflict. Russia intervened on the basis of creating “new realities” upon which to build a political settlement, but the true effect of these measures is to essentially keep the Assad regime from collapsing (ACRPS, 2015). This intervention has helped “turn the tides” of the conflict for the regime (Heistein, 2016). There are questions as to whether, at the outset of the conflict, The Administration could have realistically engaged in airstrikes. Even those who advocated a more “muscular” policy early in the war such as Hilary Clinton, Leon Panetta and David Patraeus, were not proposing any where near the kind of military involvement that would have been large enough to re-shape the conflict or even provide enough leverage to negotiate a settlement (Miller, 2016). However, it can be

As of present, the state of Iraq is plagued with a myriad of problems, each of which must be taken into consideration when determining the best possible course of action for the United States. First, previous interventions, particularly those conducted by the United States, in Iraq must be considered in order to understand how a particular course of action in the current dilemma might play out. While the United States has played a role in Iraqi coups throughout the 20th century and assisting the Kurdish population in the north, the most decisive interventions began with the Persian Gulf War. The second is the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the third is the American-led intervention in Iraq against ISIS which is ongoing.

The Global War on Terror, or War on Terror, with the United States at the helm, is the second most expensive war in American history, having surpassed $2 trillion. At the same time, little has been accomplished for domestic security or the destruction of terror groups. The United States needs a clear, focused strategy to suppress terrorist groups, while at the same time eliminating the causes for terrorism. I propose a gradual drawdown and closing of US bases and garrisons around the world. I also propose a serious global coalition to tackle ISIS, with a clear plan and exit strategy. At the same time, negotiating an agreement cannot be overlooked.

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.

Today, one of the biggest issues facing the United States as well as the rest of the world is the Sunni-militant group which goes by the name of “ISIS,” or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It has been the topic for major discussion for the past three years, with many leaders of major countries and nations trying to figure out how to defeat them. ISIS is a powerful force and has been for several years and many countries including the United States are trying to figure out how to stop them.

Imagine. The world around you is falling apart. Turmoil and chaos surround you as you are awoken by explosions, firefights, screaming, and crying every morning. You go to bed every night wondering if someone will break into your home and steal anything valuable that has not been taken by the civil war already. You think about the dead bodies you saw on the side of the road; how they got there, what they did to deserve such a punishment, how their loved ones are doing and if they have found out the horrendous news yet. You are left with the choice to either continue to take your chances in your war torn country or you can accept the unknown and attempt to run away from all the chaos that you have known for the past few years. The latter might sound like the obvious choice, but where will you go? Every country surrounding Syria has closed its borders, so where do you? How will you continue to feed yourself? Your children..? This is just the average day in the life of a citizen of Syria. The Middle East has seen turmoil for years, and this civil war is not going to make anything better. Therefore, I find it crucial to continue to maintain the same amount intervention with Syria as the world has been. Success in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will depend on a clear, effective U.S. strategy in the region. It is in the best interests of the U.S. to ensure that ISIS is

America and Iraq first began their relations back in the twentieth century when U.S oil corporations took interest in Iraq. After Saddam Hussain took control over Iraq, relations between America and Iraq spiraled downhill. Although Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) seeks sovereignty, it is in America’s interest to contain and prevent that. There are two possible solutions to this issue: military intervention and diplomacy. Diplomacy would be the better option because it would do a better job of preventing ISIL from terrorizing America and also other nations.

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.