The United States, and many other countries around the
world, are dedicated to fighting the global threat of terrorism. ISIS has been
dominating news coverage for some time now, but other terror organizations are
still present around the world. For those who are not staunch followers of
other countries’ affairs, it may be easy to forget their perils if we are not
constantly reminded of them every day. This does not mean that the U.S still
isn’t involved in combating these forces, however. The Obama administration has
been doing an admirable job of sticking to its word as best as possible, or in
taking the best course of action where and if needed to try and combat these
forces. They have been cognizant of the fact that these groups are not equal in
their size, mission, ability, land possession, infrastructure, etc., and
therefore warrant different strategies and tactics for how to be dealt with. The
Obama administration has been very mindful of that and is tailoring its
approach for each situation.
The
threat of ISIS has been at the center of media attention dealing with foreign
affairs for some time now, but the U.S has been careful with how to approach
the situation. President Obama has been clear about how he does not want to put
boots on the ground in Syria, and has taken actions to avoid having to do so. Although,
not all the strategies implemented have been effective; for example, the program
of equipping and training of Syrian rebels was not as successful as was hoped. However,
ISIS is interesting because it is unlike any other terrorist organization that
the U.S has faced. Its ability to target and successfully recruit young people
from all over the world to add to its already large member base is terrifyingly
effective, it has a comparatively strong infrastructure, and its extremely
violent and brutal behavior are just a few examples of how it differs. Many
people are calling for more action to be taken against ISIS, but the U.S can
only do so much without actually committing military action. The situation is
further complicated with everything else going on in Syria, and Russia’s
involvement. While it is uncertain how the situation will progress, President
Obama is doing his best to keep his word of not sending American troops to
fight.
Recently,
Obama has come under criticism for extending the stay of U.S troops in
Afghanistan. While he had promised to withdraw almost all of the U.S force
before leaving office, that is no longer the plan. Other NATO forces seem to be
in agreement with the U.S and are keeping their presence in the area. Some of
the reasons for doing so is that there is concern with leaving a fragile country
too quickly and concerns about Afghanistan’s ability to effectively combat
Taliban militants who are fighting to regain power. NATO’s top commander in
Europe was quoted saying that “changes on troop structure is based on
conditions on the ground, not on schedules”, according to the Washington Post.
The U.S had set an end date to its training mission, and that it is not abiding
by it, is frustrating to many people. But President Obama is also in a tough
spot here with the options that are available to him. The possible consequences
of removing troops or keeping them must be analyzed, as the Obama administration
surely did. As is the current NATO and U.S understanding, troop presence is
dictated by events, not by a schedule. So it’s not so much that President Obama
is going back on his words, as it is that he is responding to a change in
events that steered him off course from his original plan.
The Taliban and ISIS are only two
examples of the many terror organizations that the U.S is still trying to
combat. Boko Haram, for example, is still present and seeking to gain
influence. The U.S is also trying to squander them and Obama recently informed
Congress that he plans on deploying a small number of troops to Cameroon as
part of the effort against Boko Haram, but the troops will not be engaging in
direct military action against the militants. Each of these groups require a
unique response from the United States. President Obama is doing a commendable job
of trying to balance conflicting pressures both domestically and
internationally on such a sensitive and major issue. Ann Nenoff
No comments:
Post a Comment