In northern Iraq earlier this week, a U.S. military server has died for the first time since troops were removed from the country in 2011. This American Soldier died after a hostage rescue attempt that ended up saving the lives of at least 70 Iraqi hostages. This rescue was the first official U.S. military operation in Iraq since Islamic states came to power. The fallen soldier was working with members of the Iraqi peshmerga, said to be the "fiercest troop to fight against the Islamic State". This raid lasted from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m., and the injured soldiers were then airlifted to the nearest medical center. The team of U.S. troops and the peshmerga traveled 190 miles north of Baghdad to locate those being held hostage, a group consisting of 25 Iraqi military members. President Obama released a statement earlier in the month stating that he planned to train and assist Iraqi forces and place more American troops in the middle east, and this raid was the first operation under the President's new promise.
This event brings back into question President Obama's new plan to not only keep troops in Iraq, but to send more troops in. Previously Obama has carried out foreign missions by means of airstrike and providing training and sufficient funds for ground forces, but has kept the American Army's "boots off of the ground" . Ground raids are statistically proven to come with far more casualties. The casualty of this soldier has given rise to more negative opinions regarding Obama's foreign policy, questioning how this plan will benefit the United States rather than leave more casualties.
Do you think that this casualty highlights the flaws in Obama's plan to maintain troops in Iraq?
Is the higher accuracy of ground raids worth the high casualty rates?
Will this casualty ultimately change the way the public view new foreign policy?
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-death-iraq-20151022-story.html
5 comments:
It is tragic to see any casualty to a U.S. soldier, but I do not believe that it calls for questioning of Obama's military plans. This American soldier died for a good cause, saving at least 70 Iraqi hostages. Although it is ideal to not lose any American lives in war, it is not always realistic, and Obama should not be criticized for this. He knows just as well as anyone else that American lives should be valued, but war cannot always go without casualties. Yes, he decided to launch a ground raid that has higher casualty rates, but he felt that it was necessary to have a successful mission. Many people feel that American lives are more important than the lives of those in Iraq, which is understandable. But in the grand scheme of things, the U.S. has an important role in maintaining peace worldwide. Unfortunately, many people will be close minded about this issue and change the way they view new foreign policy. It is not just this event, it has built up over time. People are sick of being in the Middle East, but what many don't understand is how difficult the situation we are in is. Overall, most people will disagree with Obama's policy in keeping and sending more troops to the Middle East, something that may change in the near future with the presidential elections in 2016.
The loss of this U.S. soldier will not bring about any scandal or large amount of anger over Obama's military policy on Iraq, however, maybe it should. We should no longer be at war with Iraq as we the U.S. was involved long enough. The U.S.'s position as a worldwide keeper of the peace is dangerous for our country and is less important than getting our domestic issues in order. It's a matter of preserving American lives and concentrating on bettering our nation.
Unfortunately war has its consequences, my thoughts go out to all those affected by the loss of the soldier as well as the servicemen and women who fell before him. However, the most important factor of the operation was that it was ultimately successful and that the Special Forces accomplished their mission. I'm sure any soldier would be proud to achieve this. Not to mention that the U.S. soldiers saved dozens of Kurds, whose mass graves had already been prepared, taken hostage by ISIS. Thus, I don't believe it is necessary to criticize the decision made by the President that kept a U.S. presence in the area at this point in time. It is clear that President Obama is, and was, opposed to keeping troops in the area based on his proclamations present and past. However, in the best interest in the U.S. and its allies, he deemed it necessary to uphold U.S. action. Despite the casualty, this is positive step for both the Obama administration and the U.S. military in building a strong, respectable, presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Levant.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-special-forces-troops-injured-rescuing-isis-hostages-sources-n449106
I think that this casualty does in fact highlight the flaws in Obama’s plans to maintain troops in Iraq because of the sudden switch in both operations and plans for the troops. Obama’s new approach thus far is the ground raids to replace air strikes and providing training. This approach will consequently result in more casualties due to a more direct approach that allows for more man-to-man combat. I do think that the high accuracy of the ground raids are worth the high casualty rates because it will get the job done quicker and the sooner that happens, the sooner the troops can be removed all together from Iraq. This casualty will definitely open the public’s eye to the situation more but I don’t think it will change their overall opinion one way or another. It is something that is an inevitable consequence of these decisions and something that definitely couldn’t come as a surprise to the citizens of this country.
After reading this article I am very surprised with the fact that we still have American troops on foot in Iraq. I am curious as to why President Obama believes we need to train and assist Iraqi forces and place more American troops in the middle east, because that is basically what the back-half of the most previous Iraqi war was all about. To elaborate, in the last couple of years we were in Iraq because the main goal was to train and equip the Iraqi army to be able to defend against attacks from the Taliban and Al Qaeda without the help of the U.S. In fact, ISIS recently stole most of the weapons and vehicles we supplied to the Iraqi army, so my biggest question is why are we risking more American lives with what most likely will be the same outcome as the last time we tried to help Iraq by providing aid. As for the second question, I don't believe the higher accuracy of ground raids is worth the high casualty rates because honestly, American troops should not be deployed on the ground at all anymore in Iraq. Furthermore, the public will definitely condemn Obama for this even though it's not his fault. If we keep deploying troops on the ground in Iraq I believe the outcome will be devastating especially if more lives are lost. To conclude, the simple solution is just to realize we should not be trying to train and equip Iraq anymore, and that's the best solution to this issue.
Post a Comment