The Legacy Of Obama's Worst Mistake

Chief among the threats to the United States today is ISIS. To be able to know how to properly address this problem, one need only look at the beginning of the conflict to understand how to end it. The reason ISIS went from a ragtag militia to an armed force capable of fighting both the Iraqis and Syrians, was with the equipment and training provided by the US government and our allies. This was done with the explicit purpose to enact regime change and create a free, secular state. Granted, at the time they thought they were arming democratic loving rebels. But doesn 't that just prove that we don 't have the competence to be getting ourselves involved in conflicts where we can 't tell who the good guys are?

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

When the United States seized control over Iraq, many Iraqi citizens were left without a job. As a result of this widespread unemployment, recruitment for Muslim extremist groups thrived. Lt. General Michael Flynn, a key figure of the War, has admitted “As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him.” Flynn went on to say. “The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that

The U.S. military made the same mistakes initially in the 2003 Iraq War. The U.S. failed to allocate the proper number of troop strength, failed to adapt to the terrain, and failed to foresee the used of improvised explosive device (IED). The U.S. also lacked control of the civilian population, and the mistakes in Abu Ghraib became the rally cry for the insurgents, which the Iraqis rose to support the insurgency. (Montanus, 2005) However, the lessons learned from the British 200 years ago, the U.S. adapted and formed a concept to win the hearts of mine of the people into their counterinsurgency operation. The U.S. allocated more troops, adapted to the terrain, and employed new method to defeat IEDs. Furthermore, they opened dialogues with the Tribes, resolved conflicts, and addressed issues in order to win their support for the war. The U.S. assisted the Iraqi’s create a democratic government, provided logistic support, training

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

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

Texas made way for many great things, frozen margarita machines, chili con carne, corn dogs, Whataburger, and Six Flags, but did you know a truly heroic, patriotic president also came from this fascinating state? George Walker Bush was born to the former president, George Herbert Walker Bush and the former first lady, Barbara Pierce Bush in New Haven, Connecticut, along with some of his brothers and sisters, Jeb, Neil, Marvin, Robin, and Dorothy. (Rountree, 1) Not only was his father into the politics, but also was his grandfather, Prescott Bush. Not only was Prescott a former banker for the world famous Wall Street, but he also happened to be a

In the article, Why has America Stopped Winning Wars? the author, Dominic Tierney, asserts that the United States has entered an age of “unwinnable conflict”. Tierney argues that since the end of World War II excessive military power, an international shift from state-on-state war to internal conflict, the emergence of non-state actors and peace between states have contributed to The United States’ inability to win major conflicts. Tierney uses mistakes in strategy and tactical failures to support his argument.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

     As time passes, every society endures situations which stress its' very fabric. Each societies' history is sprinkled with these situations. One such situation which the United States underwent was the Vietnam war. For years this particular event has been hotly debated. Hardly anyone who was present at the time agrees on any point concerning this war, except that they regret it. It has become 'the greatest American foreign policy calamity of the century.' . Now the United States finds itself entangled in another war. A war in Iraq which is beginning to resemble more and more the events of the Vietnam war. Many analysts, and even the public have begun to wonder if the current

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

Following the events of September 11th, President Bush was looked to as a leader to lead the country out of chaos. “In the weeks after the attack, Bush’s approval rating rose to 90 percent—the highest recorded job-approval rating in U.S. presidential history” ( millercenter). Nowadays however, Bush is often criticized for the actions he took during the invasions. “The Bush administration’s strategy had been to reduce the U.S. military presence as Iraq’s stability improved. Yet the goal proved unattainable, owing in part to the power vacuum left by the dismantling of the Iraqi army and the rise of sectarian violence within the two dominant strains of Islam in Iraq” (millercenter). Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but many blame the Bush Administration for the power vacuum created in the Middle East. Bush’s foreign policy typically surrounded a strong use of force and led to increase in terrorism surveillance creating a discussion that is hotly debated today Following the end of Bush’s second term, Barack Obama had won the presidency and the work in the Middle East was far from over. Obama proved to have a different ideology from Bush, wanting to remove troops from the Middle East, something he

The United States cherishes democracy so much that their mission to spread democracy is completely discredited when they also partake in undemocratic practices. The United States government prides itself on spreading democracy but also supports “repressive, nondemocratic regimes because of national security or economic self-interest” (Atlas, 2012). It is absurd that the US government will support a nondemocratic regime simply because of economic gain. US led air campaigns seek to defeat the spread of terrorism and terrorist groups taking over regions. The number of US led air campaigns in Pakistan rose each year from 2005 to 2009, reaching a total of 53 airstrikes in just 2009 alone (Roggio, 2010). So how involved should Americans be on the military actions of their elected officials? A majority of Americans “accepted the bombing of civilians as an act of justifiable revenge or regrettable necessity” (Oxford, 2000). The tradeoff between protecting American lives and murdering innocent civilians is something that some Americans feel morally unshaken. Americans feel that in order to spread democracy and promote peace in the world, we need to take action against the dangerous groups that are intruding on their mission of spreading peace and democracy. But in some instances, the

One of the most heartbreaking sights was the image of a family with four children sheltering in a bunker as an incessant shower of bombs destroyed their home and nearby buildings. Exiting the bunker only brought forth even more sickening images as the family watched their neighbors being carried away on stretchers. This scene was one of the many portrayed by the media on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. Not much later my TV screen was taken over by the images of Liberia and the sickly patients diagnosed with Ebola aching for help knowing that there wasn’t any help coming. Unable to watch these stomach churning events unfold, I quickly changed the channel only to be faced with the news of yet another beheading of a westerner at the hands of Isis terrorists. Most Americans oppose the idea of America being “The World’s Policeman” because the title assumes immense responsibility. According to the Politico Poll presented by CNN, a staggering 67% of Americans believe that we shouldn’t get involved in foreign issues while 20% believe the U.S has a responsibility to use its military to protect democracy and peace. In the midst of deepening violence

As we all know United States of America is one of the most powerful country in the world and it has a power to change the ruling party of other countries. People have different opinion on US going to war, even US citizen have opinion on this. I, strictly oppose US on their foreign policy. They work for their own interest and to make big businessman happy who support politician financially. Others, who are concerned about the threat of terrorist activity in this country and others, stick with the belief that the United States is right in their attempt to remove people dictating countries from power. We hear a lot of talk in the media about the US and allied forces bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Let us not be deceived by these grand words; they are lies.