Trump Presidency Challenges

The United States; however, is struggling to find a way to let the Syrians in without allowing terrorists to enter with them. This being said, Syrians cannot be trusted. “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that evidence showed that sarin gas was used” (Allam). By using this sarin gas, they could easily put harm to the people in the United States along with maybe even killing them. People all over the world are aware of these situations and many Syrians are looking for a way

Donald Trump before he became the 45th president, his famous campaign motto “Make America Great Again” caught the attention of many Americans, but mostly by white Americans. Trump’s tactics made him a very clever man throughout the election, he had many techniques on how to gain the American vote. Throughout his campaign, he was attentive of the men around him. For example, Trump knew exactly what to say to get the attention of the American people. He already had in mind who he was going to pick in position for foreign policy, national security, and defense (“Donald Trump is the ultimate Machiavellian prince”). With this intention, he brought comfort to Americans, yet the people he was going to pick for these positions all have a common trait, which was all of them are specialist in the Middle East and Russia. Not only, was Trump attentive of America, yet he kept in mind how it was going to affect

Over years, America has spent heavily in increasing Military stockpiles and sending missions in foreign war-ravaged countries. In such countries as Iraq, Syria and Sudan, such huge expenditure have not yielded proportionate and satisfactory results. Therefore, the foreign military campaigns have largely remained cosmetic since violence on such countries resume thereafter. Additionally, those who bear the burden are the American taxpayers whose toil go down in drain without reward. The reason for failure is that America had not invested in addressing the causal roots of the problems resulting in violence in the countries (Carroll, & Sage Publications, 2003). In its stead, America will invest further in enhancing diplomacy and constructive engagements, aimed at correcting long standing causes of the wars. At the same time, the party proposes more stringent measures in protecting Federal frontiers through strong legislation on immigration and deployment of Forces to avert foreign

For almost 15 years the U.S. has been in a constant state of war. Various terrorist organizations, from al-Quade, to the Taliban, and now Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have maintained our focus so much so that we have almost forgotten about prior threats. Ten years prior to the start of the conflict in the Middle East, the Cold War had officially concluded, ending almost 45 years of server political and military tensions between the U.S. and Russian following WWII. During this period of time, Russia was the central focus of the U.S., although China and North Korea also posed a significant threat. While terrorist threats and activates remain a significant threat, Russia recent annexation of Crimea proves that they are still a very

“I have zero desire, just so you know, to be in the limelight. I don't think it's good for the country to have a former president criticize his successor. You're not going to see me giving my opinions in the public arena until I start selling my book. I'm going to emerge then submerge.”¹The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the flight against the White House on September 11, 2001, made George W. Bush into a wartime president. bush's dad the 41st president stated “he had faced the greatest challenge of any president

3 concerns about donald trump's presidency, everyone being treated fair, no over exaggerated commands such as a wall, and my third concern is will donald be a violent president?These are the things I am concerned about during donald trump's presidency. I guess we'll find out soon enough, right?

In recent years, America has faced a major problem revolving around the transnational war in Syria. The conflict in Syria and turned into a major power contest in the post-Cold War history. In an article written by Dostal (2016), “the main factor in Syria that points back to the Eisenhower Doctrine, is the effort to defend the Country’s position as major, and ideally only, external balancer in the Middle East” (214). If there were ever a triple alliance between Syria, Iraq, and Iran, it would become very difficult to control the vacuum of power within the Middle East. This would overall make it very difficult to maintain the policies that were brought up in the Eisenhower Doctrine. The overall difference in the wars that take place in the Middle East are a bit different than they were back when Eisenhower was president. However, the fact that his doctrine is still used and cited today, proves how essential it was to his presidency and one of the reasons why his presidency was so important to the United States national security not only in his years but the years to

Obama’s eventual response skillfully maneuvered Russia into agreeing to be responsible for the collection and sequestration of these weapons of mass destruction from Syria to prevent their future use by Assad. This obviously wasn’t “Obama doing nothing” as Trump characterized it and the action succeeded since no such attacks had occurred in the four

(Michales) The Russian Defense Ministry said that a training camp and ammo depot were destroyed by bombings near the Islamic State’s defector capital in Syria, Raqqa. The countries of France, Turkey, the United States, Germany, Britain, Qutar, and Saudi Arabia; all say that Russia’s actions will “only fuel more radicalization and extremism.” (Michales) Russia’s airstrikes complicate U.S. efforts to build a moderate opposition in Syria, designed to counter the Islamic State there. (Michales) Pentagon efforts to train and deploy forces stalled before Russia’s airstrikes, but any future recruitment could be difficult if the Pentagon doesn’t provide U.S- backed rebels with guarantee of protection if they come under Russian attack. (Michales) Iraq is accepting help from both the United States and Russia is an ally to the Shiite- dominated government, Iraqi leaders will follow them, while the U.S has been trying to force the Iraqis to compromise with the Sunnis. Nonetheless, when the time comes, Iraq will pick Russia for help to fight

Arguably the most powerful position in the world, the President holds unprecedented international influence, and in such a connected and constantly evolving world, subtle missteps carry great weight. With elections looming over the horizon for most in the Oval Office, the public’s perception of the Commander-in-Chief is critical. The presidents of the future should understand what power they possess and how to wield it. And albeit an oversimplification of a complex position, three rules ought to rule them all; protect businesses when they’re supplying jobs, war should be a last resort, but maintain a robust military, and never cease to let the needs of the many outweigh the deep

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

Until this event, American president Donald Trump had been following in Obama’s footsteps by ramping up his bombing campaign against IS. After the chemical attack however, Trump publically said “My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much” and just days later, he launched his strategic attack (Myre, 2017).

On the other hand, a U.S. military intervention is unlikely to happen since the U.S. cannot afford, politically or economically, an unsecured contribution to the Syrian war for an unpredictable period of time, especially after Obama’s foreign policy has been focused on ending all military involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. army hasn’t seemed to rest from the wounds of the two major past war, and veteran families were promised that military interventions will end, which makes the issue of intervention in Syria even more complicated for the U.S.

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.