This paper presents an argument in favor of a United States sponsored full-scale invasion with troops, into Iraq and Syria, for the purpose of confronting ISIS. The term ISIS, for a short abbreviation, represents the ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.’ Recent global news reports indicate a bloody sweep of terror by ISIS organizational members and sympathizers. Nevertheless, counter arguments pertaining to whether or not U.S. troops should enter into a war against ISIS provide opposing opinions. After the counter argument reviews the situation, its stance shall be revoked, and the argument in favor of U.S. invasion shall ensue.
Recently, worldwide news reports maintain that severe human rights atrocities are being committed by the group known as ISIS. One organization, Catholic Online, renders the crimes of ISIS as unspeakably evil. The report entitled, ‘The killings have begun. The world does the least it can do’ characterized several examples of the events occurring in Mosul. The report reinforces claims that Christian wives “are allegedly being taken from their husbands and made into ‘wives’ belonging to the ISIS fighters” (“Catholic Online Killings”). After the women have been captured, the women are raped and murdered – unless they agree to convert to belief in the Islamic religion. Despite the fact that ISIS beheads innocent women and children, their actions question the validity of bringing American military forces into action. Why should American troops suffer the additional trauma of fighting another war in a culture that hates Christianized democratic societies? What is prudent about the United States, already exposed to trillions dollars of federal debt spending become involved? The ISIS militants and bigots have modeled a new parameter of inhumane violence. In a CNN report authored by Greg Botelho, states “The three killed were British aid worker David Haines and American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Sotloff was Jewish and had dual citizenship with Israel” (“CNN Iranian leader rips ISIS”). Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran, explained that ISIS members want to murder all of humanity and they demonstrate their intention by slaughtering innocent people. If the viciousness of ISIS hatred is so indiscriminate, why should American troops initiate penetration into the territories of Iraq and Syria?
Obviously, ISIS fosters no concern for its own cultural neighbors. Therefore, other Islamic States in proximity to the region such as Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, should mediate military solutions by banding together. The opinion of U.S. veterans measures a split of almost fifty-fifty. Ryan Mauro reports “A new poll shows that 45% of Americans would support sending ground troops to Iraq to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS) and 37% are opposed” (“Why US Should Avoid Troops to Fight ISIS”). Also, many politicians from countries around the globe judge the United States as too bellicose. Some view the U.S. as taking on the role of ‘world police.’ But the United States cannot possibly be responsible for stepping in to monitor, or solve, every human rights violation and situation in the world.
The United States regulates too many countries’ affairs around the world as it is. Shall U.S. troop involvement serve to truly punish the insane actions of a bloodthirsty group of Islamic religious fanatics? No, this observer thinks not. No sensible answer explains or justifies why the United States should send in their military troops. The human rights tragedy of the ISIS organization’s merciless actions persuades other degenerate fools to follow them. A careful consideration of the situation provides enough facts to prescribe that American soldiers stay away from this genocidal horror. When the U.S. sticks its political and military nose into the affairs of other nations in the world, how can the United Nations (UN) expect to do its job? In today’s modern world every country and nation molds to UN laws. If the world is such a global society, how can U.S. interference in every military turmoil ever solve anything? Many Americans need assistance from their own federal government. The global economic recession has tremendously hurt U.S. citizens’ financial well-being. The majority of U.S. citizens participate in Federal food programs just to survive. Sending U.S. troop into regions such as Iraq and Syria, where Muslims should respect others of similar mid-Eastern cultures, is absolutely insane.
No human being can look at the pitiful photographs of babies with guns held to their heads by a bunch of animalistic devils, and not weep. This point simply outlines a sidebar to the real issue. Other countries protest the entrance of U.S. militarization into their lands. The Western civilizations of Europe, Canada, and the United States observe very different customs, and cultural values. If Islamic ‘principles’ are so important that they demand beheading babies and raping little girls, then its purveyors of savagery should be banned from the U.S. and Canada. Many people believe that when Muslims from the mid-Eastern nations migrate outside their cultural lands, the crime rate increases. Sweden used to be a nice country. But who in their right mind would want to live there now? Its liberal social and economic policies motivate good behavior, in terms of fairness and tolerance of human dignity. But where has it gotten them? The influx of Islamic evildoers endangers the streets for blonde-haired Swedish females. The situation is quite heinous when a woman cannot feel safe walking in her native country. Nicolai Sennels writes about the situation in Sweden in an article entitled, ‘When it comes to rapes, Islamized Sweden is already in a state of war.’ The report outlines that “100 percent of all rapes in the last five years in Oslo were committed by immigrants from ‘non-Western’ countries” (“When it comes to rapes Sweden in state of war”). The article informs readers about the seriousness of the situation by offering alarming data, which states “More than 75,000 sexual crimes yearly (including unreported attacks) in a country with only four million women might explain Swedish women’s fear of leaving their dwelling without escort” (“When it comes to rapes Sweden in state of war”). Have Swedish women always been afraid to leave their homes? So-called racist discrimination is no excuse.
Common sense dictates that not all Muslim people maim and rape their fellow human beings. Haleh Afshar has astutely written a journal article in “Ethnic and Racial Studies” entitled, ‘The politics of fear: what does it mean to those who are otherized and feared?’ Some people employ racist bigotry and hatred as a tool to put all Muslims in the same category of behaviors. This type of blind racism only cause more bitterness and discord between people trying to live together on the same planet. Everyone practicing the Islam religion are not insane child killers, or rapists. To make such an erroneous statement decries the most intense hypocrisy ever. Any American would especially be guilty of hypocrisy, given the massive statistics of abortion rates in the U.S. This writer digresses a bit Afshar states “Islamophobia has, of late, created a tendency to conflate all Muslims as belonging to a single nation of Islam that does not recognize and respect boundaries imposed by western geopolitics” (9). In other words, not all people who are Muslims are a monolith. They are not all carved from a singular block of thinking. Not all blacks think alike. Not all Jews think alike. Not all Europeans think alike. Not all Chinese think alike.
The ISIS problem inventories a seriously detrimental infection upon all humankind. But despite the grave situation, U.S. troops should not be dragged into the militarized combat zones of Iraq and Syria if those countries will not collaborate with its middle-Eastern neighbors to eradicate the problem. All of the aforementioned reasons for U.S. troops not to enter a military intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria are invalid.
First of all, the world has morphed into a single global community. What happens in Iraq, Syria, California, The U.S., or China affects all. Nobody in the United States particularly cares about what other international entities think about her cultures. No other industrialized, powerful country in the West has collectively endured the migration of wide numbers of people – over a long span of time – and adopted them as citizens. The United States has traditionally contributed millions of dollars in foreign aid to help developing countries in terms of education, medicine, and policy analyst formation. The United States did not sit idly by when Germany’s Hitlerian Nazi regime invoked the mass murder of several million human beings. Also, the U.S. military needs to intervene in the ISIS situation because there are many people living in American who embrace the Islamic faith.
If ISIS converts and sympathizers obtain funding from Muslims who live in the United States, the situation of human rights abuses will simply escalate. Persons living in the United States secure reasonable standards of living, even those at lower ranking economic positions. If the U.S. does not get militarily involved, to confront ISIS in Iraq and Syria, the movement will grow. Islamic believers currently residing in the U.S. may prepare more inroads for ISIS members to receive additional funding. Islamic believers in the U.S. may allow their ISIS relatives to immigrate. The U.S. needs to intervene on the premise of one basis alone. The blatantly evil crimes against humanity perpetrated by ISIS must be stopped. The U.S. has wielded military superiority, coupled with an overall moral conscience, which calls for her to step forward.
Militant believers in Islam hold a track record of committing atrocities where ever they land. Consider the case of Sweden, and other Nordic countries. Their lands have been infiltrated by criminal elements of Muslim extremists who rape their citizens. This situation has brought increased levels of danger to places which were safer without their influx. Another reason why the U.S. military must intervene to stop ISIS by force clarifies an effective solution. In other words, the victims of ISIS endure the deadly violence of militarized weapons against them – when they have no adequate guns to defend themselves. Iraq and Syria are already struggling to stabilize their national situations, especially in the midst of the Israeli-Palestinian squabbles.
The United States military commands an awesome array of intelligence tools at its disposal, also. President Barack Obama has expressed “his opposition to the group, ordering airstrikes targeting ISIS in Iraq and promising similar air attacks on the group in Syria” this may not be enough (“CNN Iranian leader rips ISIS”). Observers complain that dropping air bombs will not solve the problem of ISIS committing human rights violations. ISIS demonstrates that it plans to proliferate its evil, and has even threatened The White House. The thought of increased losses of American troops’ lives is not pleasant, and many claim ISIS is frothing at the mouth to engage in a physical war with the United States. U.S. Intelligence ‘warfare’ should never be underestimated. We live in a wired world. ISIS shall not remain content to cut down children in the dusty realms of Iraq and Syria, where people struggle to survive. These people want to love and raise their children.
In conclusion, one argument against sending U.S. troops to militarily engage with ISIS concerns the opinions of American soldiers. Many say American soldiers oppose entering a war with ISIS. There is no overwhelming majority among U.S. troops which oppose engagement in a war against ISIS. The Obama Administration has made clear points. “first, that no American ground forces will be sent into combat against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and second, that the United States will merely be part, albeit a leading part, of a broad coalition of Arab and NATO countries” (“Will American Troops Be Sent to Fight Isis?”). So far, only U.S. air power corresponds to any immediate plans to fight against ISIS’s tyranny. Hopefully, the President and Congress will soon come to their ethical senses and do the right thing.
One idea, reiterated from Obama’s position in The White House, claims there is no need to engage U.S. ground troops in a fight against ISIS. The reasons elude discovery thus far. Perhaps one reason Obama seeks to avoid a ground-troop invasion of Iraq and Syria is because military intelligence tactics can get to the root of the problem. The U.S. should definitely get involved to mitigate the situation. But America should not have to shoulder the entire responsibility. Where is Europe in standing up for doing the right thing? Are they prepared to go to battle against the ruthless criminal tactics of ISIS? The biggest reason for American military intervention against ISIS is the threat of domestic violence on U.S. soil. If ISIS has managed to recruit members from Western nations, then it may be a matter of time before its unique brand of ugly violence creeps into America. Wisdom teaches a nation to defend itself.
Works Cited
Afshar, Haleh. “The Politics of fear: What Does it Mean To Those Who Are Otherized: and
Feared?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 36.1 (2013): 9-27. E-Journals. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
BBC News. “How do US veterans feel about the crisis in Iraq? – BBC News.” YouTube.
YouTube, 18 Jun. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
“Iranian leader rips ISIS, questions U.S. willingness to ‘sacrifice’ in terror fight.” Cnn.
CNN World, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
“The Killings have begun. The world does the least it can do.” catholic.org Catholic Online, n.d.
Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
Mauro, Ryan. “Why U.S. Should Avoid Sending its Ground Troops to Fight ISIS.”
Clarionproject.org. The Clarion Project News Analysis, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
“When it comes to rapes, Islamized Sweden is already in a state of war.” jihadwatch.org Jihad
Watch, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
“Will American Ground Troops Be Sent to Fight ISIS?” counterpunch.org Counterpunch
Publishers, n.d. 18 Oct. 2014.
