The President Of The United States

During ISIS’s rise to power, there have been several key players, which have influenced the growth or decline of its movement. The center of Gravity (COG) for ISIS has been its ability to recruit volunteer foreign fighters from around to engage in its caliphate. In addition, local people from Iraqi, Syrian, and other Nations have been key players because of ISIS’s efforts promote fear and violence against their family or communities. Sunnis and Shia countries focused on regional power and security. Furthermore, the U.S. and its 70 Allies through Operation Inherent Resolve Campaign aim to defeat ISIS and promoting regional stability. The last key players are rival terrorist franchises or organizations like AQ, Taliban, Al Shabaab, and Hamas

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.

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.

With the elections coming along swiftly and the hard decision upon us one is left to think. Think about who we will vote for yes, but also why we have this awesome power to vote for our new commander and chief, the person that can make decisions that can alter our future. We the people get to choose who fills this position. Our countries fate is in our hands and I would like to know what gives us this power and why. Why are eighteen year olds allowed to vote and what makes these eighteen year olds qualified to vote. Not just this but also, why do we vote? And most importantly to the men and women that reside in the United States of America, is voting the most rational, and efficient way to choose the man or woman that will run our great country for the next four years?

1) The President of the United States is certainly one the most powerful people in the free world, but interestingly, the Constitution 's drafters did not expect this to be the case. Constitutional provisions limited the early presidency. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution”, was worried that the "power balance" tilted toward the House of Representatives. Madison believed that its control in terms of taxes and spending and its ability to legislate laws that narrowed the powers of the executive and the judiciary made the legislative branch the real center of national power.

The attacks on 9/11 gave way to a Congress military intervention in the Middle West backed by the Americans. Military actions are extremely costly on the taxpayers pocket, but after an even in American soil that left more Americans dead than Pearl Harbor, many Americans were anxious to make someone pay. For the first time though the enemy wasn’t a country or totalitarian government, it was a radical group who’s military tactics were based on terrorism and insurgency. Al-Qaeda, under the tutelage of Osama Bin Laden, had declared war on United States after the army stationed in Saudi Arabia. Just like in Vietnam, a different terrain and unidentified enemy made it very difficult for the American troops to identify their enemy and remove them. America’s military superiority disseminated Al-Qaeda, the remaining members with Bin Laden escaped from Afghanistan to Pakistan. At the same time, it became known of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, giving birth to “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. More than 1.5 million troops have been

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

While relatively unknown in its early years, the terrorist organization known as ISIL, or the

One of the largest decisions that the United States has faced under President Obama's reign has been what to do about the apparent and impending threat of the Islamic Nation. In fact many view many of the Islamic States actions as intentionally manipulated military strike aimed at provoking the United States into intervening Middle Eastern affairs. Their message is blatantly apparent through the strategic military strike upon the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, thus forcing the United States into defending their alliance with the Kurdistan nation. This strategic chess move has great advantages towards in a variety of circumstances for the Islamic Nation because any other decision other than military intervention would result in the advancement

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.

The Washington Institute For Near East Policy convened its new proposals to bring change between four viewpoints on the potential threat on U.S and its allies regarding ISIS. While the rhetoric used during the U.S. presidential campaign has produced a range of controversial statements about “destroying” ISIS, specific policy proposals remain limited.

In order to control and stop the terror group known as ISIS the United States needs to put boots in the ground in Syria, Iraq, and any other country that ISIS has control of. The United States also needs to make a battle plan with Russia, Israel, the Iraqi government, and some European countries in order to fully stop ISIS. “All the United States has been doing against ISIS is launching airstrikes against them, and the airstrikes have

Iraq once had a formidable military that was able to wage war with Iran for eight years. With great loss of life on both sides and neither side gaining or losing territory, the war ended (). However, this did not stop Iraq from attacking Kuwait a few years later (). After this war ended abruptly, the Iraqi military still possessed a wide range of sophisticated air defense systems from various countries such as Russia and China. Despite the numerous components of the integrated air defense systems, its actual operating capabilities were quite limited. The system was designed to counter comparatively limited threats from a Western air campaign (). Currently, Iraq’s air defense capabilities are being bolstered by Russian “state-of-the-art close-range air defense complexes and multiple-launch heavy flame-blast systems” () to help eliminate the countries newest threat, which are calling themselves the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria also known as ISIS (). The threat of the hybrid jihadist group, ISIS, has diminished the advancements of Iraq’s current military strength. “Its strategy for survival and growth blends military, political, social, and economic components” (). “In June 2014, the once-proud Iraqi army simply collapsed and failed to defend the country’s second-largest city, Mosul, from approximately 1200 ISIS

One of the greatest challenges for the anti-Assad rebellion has been fighting a well-armed, well-supported Assad regime (Sorenson, pg. 13). The United States has provide arms and support to anti-regime fighters, but not nearly at the same pace as Russia and Iran have resupplied Assad. Also, rebels lack cohesion, as there are numerous anti-Assad factions that are attempting to overthrow the government, often times competing with each other. In order to bring the rebels together, and form a stronger rebellion against Assad, this course of action requires U.S. military presence on the ground. While I do not submit that the United States lead the attacks, we should instead embed ourselves with Syrian rebels, providing direct training and mentoring to the rebels, as well as providing support from aircraft and long-range artillery. Similar to operations in Libya, the U.S.-led air attacks can directly attack Assad himself, paving the way for a more successful rebellion. While we cannot possibly unite all of the rebel groups, we must show and provide a unified front for

As seen through today’s prism of operational art and design, the U.S. military’s campaign planning for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) was not successful. This failure resulted from flaws in the planning process itself, and the conclusions that flowed from that process. The lack of adequate advance planning for Phase IV stability or transition operations proved especially problematic. This contributed directly to rising levels of violence in Iraq, and indirectly to increased public scrutiny of the war at home. Throughout 2006, the U.S. public, pundits and military planners debated the way forward in Iraq. The plan that emerged from this period, known as the surge, successfully overcame the deficiencies in the initial planning and execution