Summary:
The self proclaimed IS caliphate officially came to an end when US backed Syrian fighters removed militants from the last remaining IS controlled territory in Syria. At it’s peak, IS controlled large chunks of land in the north, bringing about brutal rule on about eight million people. Even though all of IS territory has been recaptured, the terrorist organization is not dead. If US pressure is not maintained in the area, it is estimated that IS can resurge in the next six to twelve months. This has prompted President Trump to not remove all 2,000 US soldiers from the country. IS is not described as a “covert network, meaning that they are in a phase of reorganization and are setting up cells. These sleeper cells are groups of terrorists spread over different locations that will hide within a population and attack when given a signal.
The prosecution of the Yazidi religious group brought the US into the war, leading to a coalition of more than 10 countries. IS counties to generate revenue and is estimated to have between 50 and 300 million dollars in cash. There are many militants tied to IS around the world, but it is difficult to find legal evidence to prosecute them. Many key cities in Syria have been recaptured through coalition air strikes, with Raqqa, Mosul, and Hajin being hit with the most. Since air strikes are not precise, almost ⅓ of all deaths (112,600 out of 371,000 total) have been civilians. About 11 million Syrians have been displaced, either going to Europe or surrounding countries. Turkey has taken the most refugees, coming in at about 4 million. Since the IS caliphate has been deteriorating for a while, about 4 million people have returned home. Sadly, because of the destruction of property and limited resources, many people still cannot go home.
Reaction:
Personally, I feel relieved that IS has lost all their territory and that people can start to move back to their homes. As cliche as it might sound, this win emphasizes the power of teamwork, as there were many groups involved into making this victory possible. Through coalitions and a mutual goal, many different countries came together to defeat the terrorist group. When I was reading this I felt a sense of pride because of the leadership role of the US, but what still worries me is the threat of sleeper cell or terror attacks in different parts of the world. Even though IS now doesn’t have land, they still have ideals that have influenced many people around the globe. But these influenced people are often very hard to find, meaning that these attacks are hard to predict and prevent.
Connections:
This connects to World War Two and the Israel/ Palestine conflict. In World War 2, ⅔ of the total deaths were by civilians, and while not that high in this conflict, ⅓ is still a very high civilian casualty rate. In both conflicts, civilians were caught in the middle and paid a huge price. Another connection to World War 2 is the alliances. In both, WW2 and this war, many countries came together to defeat the opposing side. In WW2, the allies put aside their differences and defeated Nazi Germany. Here, countries banded together through coalitions to fight and defeat a mutual enemy. This also connects to Israel/Palestine because one of the obstacles to peace was the fear of terrorist groups. If these groups can be defeated, with this victory being an example, does that mean that there is a possibility of this obstacle being removed?
Questions:
- Do you think President Trump should remove all the US soldiers from Syria?
- How do think that countries can combat sleeper cells?
- What is a more precise way (not air strikes) to combat terrorist groups so the least number of civilians die?
- Do you think it is safe and worth it for people to start returning to their homes?
I think that the removal of some forces is warranted. However, there have been issues with troops deployments before. From 2004 to 2006 US troops deployments in Afghanistan were stagnant at 25,000 which allowed Al-Qaeda to grow there. US troops numbered over 100,000 in 2010. In 2010 496 US troops died while deployed in Afghanistan. This could have easily been prevented with quicker action on the part of the US in terms of preventing Al-Qaeda growth. We are another one of these points and we should keep troops deployed or implement rollbacks slowly in order to create long-term peace in the region. This would definitely help to combat sleeper-cells. Another step could be to further current programs where the US military trains Afghan soldiers. This will create peace even after US troops come back home. Killing militants without endangering US lives is very hard. I think the US should invest more in their drone program and develop more precise drones so that civilians are not endangered. While the ultimate goal is to have people return I think that it is not fully secure at this time. We should make sure ISIS does not spring up again and we should try and capture their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1205l8IBEg-eeJ0zuIEXT0dXltjEtksbOqyWEcHN6CWo/edit?usp=sharing
I believed that it is justifiable to remove US troops from Syria, but not all of them. The issue of fighting over land in Syria had been mostly resolved so the US won't need to physically fight with US troops anymore. The main force of troops should be returned home while the remaining troops would maintain pressure on terrorist groups in Syria. In the case of civilians returning to their homes, I don't believe that it is safe or smart to return. Although terrorist groups in Syria don't have a physical presence in the country, there is still the looming threat of sleeper cells. In addition to the dangers of returning home, their homes may also be unsuitable for living. Syria is a war-torn country and with all the combat and bombings, peoples' homes in Syria may be in worse conditions than the camps they are currently living in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Garvin in that not all the troops should be removed, as this is likely to cause a vacuum in which there can be a possible resurgence of IS. Removing all the troops can allow the remaining militants to coalesce and form a larger and stronger group, as there is no threat to the survival. But if a some troops remain and surveillance is maintained, then it will be harder for those groups to regain power. I disagree with your point that refugees shouldn’t return home. This is because the current camps that they live in have conditions that are much worse than their homes in their own country. This displaced refugees have no income opportunities that they might have in their own country. The countries that are taking in these refugees have almost no means of providing services to these people. The camps are also very dangerous because of violence, due to differing opinions and unrest.
Deletehttps://sites.duke.edu/refugeementalhealth/2018/03/27/refugee-camps-poor-living-conditions-and-their-effects-on-mental-health/
I believe that President Trump should remove all US troops from Syria. Now that the last piece of IS territory in Syria has been captured, the US don't have any business in those territories. However, if the IS do somehow return, I do believe that it is justifiable for the US to return and aid in defeating them only if the other countries request their help, otherwise, the more countries involved will only make the conflict more intertwined and complicated in my opinion. In regards to finding the most precise way to kill the IS while not harming citizens, it will be rounding up and capturing all the suspected IS members and interrogating them, if they seem to be innocent through the interrogation, they will be let go. However, this is the most tedious and costly way, and I believe that even though it will save infrastructure destruction and damage in the region along with civilian deaths, I don't believe that any countries in the area will consider doing this as the cost far outweighs the gain for them. I think that the civilians have no benefit to returning to their homes as they may not even have one to return to. I don't think it's safe at all, and that the conditions of the areas they'r currently living in may be safer than their conditions back home, as there is still a lot of crumbling and unstable infrastructure, along with the possibility of leftofter military weapons such as mines.
ReplyDeleteI believe that President Trump should remove most US troops from Syria, but not all of them. Syria still needs the US' help in order to keep sleeper cells from becoming bigger problems. On that note, I believe that having forces like the FBI in Syria to track and eliminate sleeper cells that pose threats to civilians is the best way to combat them. This ensures precisely targeted strikes that have very little impact on the lives of Syrians. However, I do not believe it is safe enough for people to return to their homes. Even with a smaller terrorist threat, if someone returns home, that's it for them. It is definitely not worth risking your life while there are terrorist organizations in your homeland. It is better to wait for the government to form organizations (like the FBI) to sweep through the area in search of sleeper cells until returning home.
ReplyDeletePresident Trump should leave the troops in Syria until the Syrian military is capable enough to deal with the conflict on its own. The US being there is definitely a deterrent to IS and various militant groups, but also may infringe on the capability of the Syrian military in handling terrorist situations and conflicts. I think that countries should have more uptight security because having better and more security will deter terrorists from attacking. I think the most precise way in combating terrorist groups is to user snipers. Snipers are able to pick off people without being seen which I think is the most effective way. I still don’t think that it is safe for people to come back home because the region is not stable enough for people to return since a lot of conflict is going on in the area. Once the region is stable and won’t unstabilize for a long time, then I think that it will allow for a good home for the people and also will stabilize the economy in the region.
ReplyDeleteMost of the major present problems in Syria have been resolved, so the US would be warranted to pull some troops from the area, but the better part of the army should stay in Syria until the sleeper cell problem has resolved or the Syrian military can take over (whichever comes first). The best way to resolve the sleeper cell problem would be to keep a close eye on the towns and be ready to counter a future attack, since there would be no good way to track them all down and therefore no way to know when they'll attack. That being said, people should be able to return to their homes so long as the military can keep a good eye on the people until the sleeper cells attack.
ReplyDeleteBecause of continued sleeper cell activity in Syria and surrounding areas, I don't believe it's the best idea to completely abandon the region. However, the role of any remaining American forces would most likely transition from one of combat to one of education and diplomacy. The Islamic State, more than anything, feeds on the spread of its ideology, making it imperative that people in the area (and worldwide) don't become enamored with its core concepts. To address the second question, Syria-- and any place plagued by terrorism-- can really only solve the terrorism issue by attacking it at its root and demonizing the ideals it stems from. An article from TIME (http://time.com/5008076/nyc-terror-attack-isis-facebook-russia/) calls ISIS a "brand," highlighting how its extensive use of social media to post propaganda is able to reach susceptible people all over the world. TIME cites the radicalization of a 2017 New York terrorist attack perpetrator as a real world example of this process. Countries can focus on programs that draw people away from radical ideals, perhaps striving to improve conditions or prejudices that cause citizens to gravitate towards them in the first place. I believe America can aid Syria in doing so, so long as we don't undermine the SDF's ability to contend with its own internal affairs.
ReplyDeleteTo answer you first question, no i do not think that the US should remove their troops form Syria. However, i do believe that the US should stop aiding rebels within Syria. If u are unaware the US signed a secret order allowing the CIA to train and equip civilian rebels in Syria. This is not helping the cause because these citizens could easily hand these weapons over to other terrorists. These air strikes are also not very humane innocent people are dying because of this and i am sure the US does not want to be held responsible for this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think at this point in time, with these new revelations, that Trump should pull out the U.S. troops. At this moment it's a little unwise to perform an action like that because of the fact that IS resurgence could happen so soon after they decrease pressure. Honestly, the best way in which to combat terrorism does not include military, air strikes, or necessarily any violence. There is a reason that terrorist groups are called "terrorists," it's because their actions and movements are all intended to incite fear in their target victims. And even though Syria is currently in a horrifically split state with so many non-Syrian government presences and forces in the area, it could be rather reasonable to see the return of the Syrian refugees and if we'd be able to combat terrorism in such a fashion.
ReplyDeleteAny rash actions could lead to long term problems. I feel the US should not pull their troops from Syria. The split in Syrian governing bodies makes the politics in the area, very unstable. With the terrorist groups in the area, if the US were to leave completely I feel these groups could make a strong comeback. Although not ideal to have US involvement in the Middle East, the US's presence has and will continue to impact the area, good or bad. Unfortunately there is no easy solution for these problems, my sympathy goes out to all the Syrian citizens who have lost their homes and friends/family. I do not believe it is safe for these citizens to return to their homes, considering current conditions. The threat and fear of airstrikes and other civilian-aimed attacks is too great.
ReplyDelete