In term of Obama’s action, he did withdrawed American troops in Iraq but not totally due to keeping of some for battle ISIS. This can be considered that American soldiers who came to the Iraqi mission in 2003 was backed home. U.S force in Iraq now is fighting with ISIS not Iraqi government. ISIS is another actor which is not backed by Iraqi government or totally controls in Iraq. It is an extremist terrorist group controls a part of Iraq and Syria (Hashim, 2014). Target of U.S troops in Iraq is ISIS not Iraqi president as in 2003. Moreover, Obama lauched new mission attack ISIS different from Bush invasion Iraq in 2003 in terms of millitary plan. In Iraq invasion 2003, marine and ground troops was used as major military strategy (Walsh, 2013).
…show more content…
As a result, the invasion in 2003 and countering ISIS is not relevant and criticizing Obama in this perspective is not suitable. In addition, the promise of Obama and changing plan of withdrawing American troops illustrated his creative strategy. Iraqi people suffered from war over ten year from 2003, the ending of long war is a desire of them. The new Iraqi government would also build a new state in the perspective of Iraq was destroyed in the long time. For these reason, Obama’s promise about the stoping of war is a method in order to guarant a positive future for Iraq and the presence of U.S army in Iraq for countering ISIS is also an assistance to government to escape from chaos. Iraqi asking for U.S assistant in the battle with ISIS was an evidence of Obama’s foreign policy success in Iraq. Facing with the danger of ISIS, Iraqi government asked for U.S help (BBC, 2014). That also demonstrated an important role of U.S in Iraq. As Afghanistan case, Iraqi government still depend on U.S and it is an opportunity of maintaining U.S – Iraq relationship post Saddam era in order to become a new chessman of U.S in case of countering ISIS was …show more content…
However, ISIS now becomes a new threat of U.S national security. As a result, countering ISIS is necessary with Obama administration. Nevertheless, best strategy to deal with ISIS is great concern of U.S. As mentioned above, U.S deployed airstrike and let Iraqi government play as central role to attack ISIS; mostly U.S troops in Iraq are advisers. Furthermore, U.S also trained Kurdish soldiers because Kurd lived in the North of Iraq that near the controlled area of ISIS and Kurdish people conflict with ISIS (Parkinson & Nissenbaum, 2014). However, it is not enough to defeat ISIS, U.S must cooperate with other actors. Pick up and choose is a new question of Obama administration for a chessman to attack ISIS. Although ISIS is Sunnis terrorist group (Stern & Berger, 2015) and Shiite conflicts with Sunnis, Iran and Hezbollah are a dilemma. Iran has a large of Shiite Muslim and Hezbollah also fight with ISIS (Hilleary, 2015). However, they may bring a challenge for U.S. Firstly, Iran was backed by Russia and China, thus, it is not active in case of cooperating with U.S. Secondly, to gain the cooperation with Iran, U.S must loose economic sanctions and the nuclear program of Iran. Therefore, it is an opportunity for Iran to develop its nuclear weapons. Thirdly, Hezbollah is also another terrorist group and
As a result, the invasion in 2003 and countering ISIS is not relevant and criticizing Obama in this perspective is not suitable. In addition, the promise of Obama and changing plan of withdrawing American troops illustrated his creative strategy. Iraqi people suffered from war over ten year from 2003, the ending of long war is a desire of them. The new Iraqi government would also build a new state in the perspective of Iraq was destroyed in the long time. For these reason, Obama’s promise about the stoping of war is a method in order to guarant a positive future for Iraq and the presence of U.S army in Iraq for countering ISIS is also an assistance to government to escape from chaos. Iraqi asking for U.S assistant in the battle with ISIS was an evidence of Obama’s foreign policy success in Iraq. Facing with the danger of ISIS, Iraqi government asked for U.S help (BBC, 2014). That also demonstrated an important role of U.S in Iraq. As Afghanistan case, Iraqi government still depend on U.S and it is an opportunity of maintaining U.S – Iraq relationship post Saddam era in order to become a new chessman of U.S in case of countering ISIS was …show more content…
However, ISIS now becomes a new threat of U.S national security. As a result, countering ISIS is necessary with Obama administration. Nevertheless, best strategy to deal with ISIS is great concern of U.S. As mentioned above, U.S deployed airstrike and let Iraqi government play as central role to attack ISIS; mostly U.S troops in Iraq are advisers. Furthermore, U.S also trained Kurdish soldiers because Kurd lived in the North of Iraq that near the controlled area of ISIS and Kurdish people conflict with ISIS (Parkinson & Nissenbaum, 2014). However, it is not enough to defeat ISIS, U.S must cooperate with other actors. Pick up and choose is a new question of Obama administration for a chessman to attack ISIS. Although ISIS is Sunnis terrorist group (Stern & Berger, 2015) and Shiite conflicts with Sunnis, Iran and Hezbollah are a dilemma. Iran has a large of Shiite Muslim and Hezbollah also fight with ISIS (Hilleary, 2015). However, they may bring a challenge for U.S. Firstly, Iran was backed by Russia and China, thus, it is not active in case of cooperating with U.S. Secondly, to gain the cooperation with Iran, U.S must loose economic sanctions and the nuclear program of Iran. Therefore, it is an opportunity for Iran to develop its nuclear weapons. Thirdly, Hezbollah is also another terrorist group and