| Hollande has approved the request by the French Military to conduct air strikes in Iraq |
ISIS has claimed dozens of cities and towns in Iraq and Syria, and this is where the two plans differ. Hollande has chosen to restrict his actions to Iraq, however Obama has stated an aim of degrading and disrupting ISIS activities in Syria as well. For many weeks, France has been flying reconnaissance fights over Iraq and providing Kurdish fighters on the ground with weapons. On Monday, France held a conference which saw 26 countries pledge their commitment to supporting the fight against ISIS. Also, on Thursday, the US Senate approved Obama's plan to equip and train moderate Syrian rebels to fight against ISIS. This comes as a result of neither France or the United States conducting air strikes in Syria.
Ain al-Arab has been besieged by ISIS. He said that the ISIS terrorists should be "hit and destroyed wherever they are". I completely agree with this statement, but it comes at such a time when many countries are not willing to invest in ground personnel in the conflict. For example, the United States military is only conducting air strikes in Iraq to combat ISIS, however they are training and equipping many Syrian rebels. Many claim that air strikes are the new age of war, however if the US Forces still would like ground presence in Syria, I do not believe that arming rebels is the way to deal with this problem. Similarly, the French, British and Germans have all armed the Kurds in Northern Iraq. This may be partially due to the general disapproval of the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003, however I believe that it is not proper to arm another group of rebels when you are trying to combat an opposing group of rebels. I think these countries should only conduct air strikes or intervene on the ground with their own respective forces.
Adapted From:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/index.html?iref=allsearch
No comments:
Post a Comment