Putting More Soldiers into the Field
Putting more soldiers into the field in present-day battlefronts such as those in Syria, Iraq and various areas in the Middle East can be considered as double-edged sword due to both its benefits as well as the potential negative repercussions. The deployment of troops could help to put pressure on terrorist forces that are located in the aforementioned areas thereby reducing the potential for them to gain a significant foothold. However, as evidenced by the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, military action in some regions can often result in the local population developing a distinctly negative outlook on American troops and the U.S. in general. This can contribute to higher rates of recruitment into local insurgencies thereby increasing the problem in the future. It should also be noted that the deployment of troops also comes with a considerable price that often reaches into the billions due to the support structure that is needed in foreign battlefields (Mercille 63).
Deployment is thus limited by the current economic capabilities of the U.S. in relation to the budgetary allotments that can be given by Congress when it comes to any form of major troop deployment. If Congress should oppose the deployment of troops via limiting the proposed budget, then it is unlikely that any successful campaign can be waged. In relation to Congressional approval for troop deployment, the capacity for the Congressional assembly to approve budgets for troop deployment is in part influenced by public opinion. Elected officials within Congress are beholden to their constituents and it is unlikely that they would support budgetary approvals for actions that the general public is opposed to (O’Boyle 210). Given current domestic sentiment within the U.S. that is opposed to further deployment of troops, it is unlikely that Congress will support further troop deployment despite the demands placed on it by the Executive and military branches of the government.
U.S.A Strategy Concerning ISIS
The current strategy of the U.S. involving ISIS is a combination of military aide to government forces in Iraq as well as air support in order to target verified ISIS bases of operations within various theaters of war. However, despite this aide, government forces within Iraq and even areas in Syria continue to be besieged and claimed by ISIS forces. The reasons behind this will be discussed in order to showcase what must be done in order to create a better strategy in countering ISIS. Since 2013 the U.S. government has provided more than $450 million worth of military-grade equipment to Iraqi government forces along with additional training in order to ensure that they could help to handle the region’s domestic terrorist issues.
However, as seen in the various successes of ISIS from 2014 till the present, government funding to help Iraqi forces has resulted in little in the way of successful extermination of ISIS. What is even worse is the fact that large caches of the arms provided by the U.S. found their way into the hands of ISIS resulting in them being used against Iraqi forces (Patten 6). The problem, as seen in the case of Iraq, is that despite the attempts of the U.S. to help the Iraqi forces develop themselves into a better fighting force, the limited amount of training they received is simply not enough. Despite the presence of military-grade hardware, they do not have sufficient knowledge, tactics, and experience to utilize them effectively. This is not to say that ISIS has these factors, far from it; rather it is more accurate to state that the reason why ISIS has been so successful is due to a combination of knowing the lay of the land better as well as being able to disguise themselves among members of the local population (Bew 28).
Combined with guerrilla warfare tactics and high rates of recruitment, it is not surprising that ISIS has been able to establish itself the way it has. Based on what has been presented so far, the strategy of supporting government forces in Iraq is simply not effective due to the incapability of the Iraqi forces to effectively combat ISIS. To resolve this issue, it is recommended that the government bring several battalions worth of Iraqi soldiers into the U.S. where they can be properly trained in the right kind of tactics to counter ISIS. Once they have been properly trained and armed, they can be brought back into Iraq with sufficient air support. The additional training would go a long way towards enabling the local military towards addressing the problem of ISIS for good.
Immigrants Coming From Syria
There are both positive and negative aspects when it comes to accepting the influx of 185,000 migrants from Syria that should be taken into consideration. The first problem is the potential for radical Muslim elements within the population of refugees that will be arriving. This presents itself as a considerable internal security issue that cannot be overlooked due to the long-lasting effects it may have on domestic security within the U.S. On the other hand, the U.S. cannot just outright ignore the plight of 185,000 people when other nations are doing their part to aide them by also bringing them in (Zetter and Ruaudel 6). Considering the fact that the U.S. is the richest country on Earth due to its considerable economic wealth, then it should bring in the refugees to show its capacity for humanitarian aid (Dahi 45). However, the U.S. should also monitor the refugee populations it brings into the country in order to determine whether there are elements of ISIS or radical Islam among their ranks. By doing so, this would help to prevent future domestic terrorism issues from occurring.
Implementing a Draft
Implementing a draft simply because President Obama is de-emphasizing the military does not make sense. Drafts were initially utilized as an emergency procedure during times of all-out war. However, the present-day conflict within the Middle East is unlikely to result in a potential invading force into the country. Do note though that while there has been a declining emphasis on the military this does not mean that military spending has been entirely curtailed. The U.S. has one of the most advanced armed forces in the world and continues to improve on the equipment that it gives to its personnel. By virtue of the advanced equipment, specialized tactics as well as a considerable industrial base, it is unlikely that a draft will truly be necessary given the current nature of global conflicts that consist of short skirmishes rather than long drawn out engagements as seen during the first World Wars.
Works Cited
Bew, John. “The Long Shadow Of Isis.” New Statesman 143.5230 (2014): 26-31. Print.
Dahi, Omar S. “Syria In Fragments: The Politics Of The Refugee Crisis.” Dissent (00123846) 61.1 (2014): 45. Print.
Mercille, Julien. “Mind The Gap: Security ‘Crises’ And The Geopolitics Of US Military Spending.” Geopolitics 13.1 (2008): 54-72. Print.
O’Boyle, Edward. ““Social Vs. Military Spending”: A Different Perspective.” Review Of Social Economy 68.2 (2010): 205-219. Print.
Patten, David A. “Policy Brief: Defeating ISIS, Rolling Back Iran.” Middle East Quarterly 22.4 (2015): 1-9. Print.
Zetter, Roger, and Héloïse Ruaudel. “Development And Protection Challenges”.