Facebook Updates: Todays topic; the next political update here at The Fast-Read; a overview of the plans used by the United States government in the battle against the terrorist organization known as ISIS. For those not watching the news; the main plan being used by the U.S. government in combatting ISIS would include airstrikes; arming and training military forces in the Iraq-Syria region; and preventing global attacks from ISIS. Now preventing attacks from ISIS at a global level would prevent ISIS from obtaining more members from around the world. Also reduces their inlfluence impact; in other words advertising; prevents ISIS from advertising their organization. There are possibly people out there that are aligned with ISIS; not just talking about within the U.S.; possibly anywhere. In Belgium; Germany; France; throughout Europe; there are anti-terrorist raids going on in efforts to battle ISIS; to go after terrorist cells operating in those countries. To go after people that were being closely monitored by governments and were possible terrorist suspects. Also to work against Islam extremism. Just talking about ISIS at a global level; now here is the Iraq-Syria part. News reports are saying the airstrike strategy against ISIS is ineffective. ISIS is capable of recruiting more members in comparison to what the U.S. government can destroy with airstrikes alone. Not only that; there is the question of will training rebel forces in the Iraq-Syria region be enough to battle ISIS. Many members in the U.S. government disagree with the current plans used in combatting ISIS. That the President of the United States; Barack Obama should authorize the use of U.S. military force in Iraq and Syria; ISIS is a major threat to the U.S. and the worldwide community. Also the NATO coaltion involved with combatting ISIS currently only has a minor role in the battle against ISIS. Most of the combatting is through the U.S. government and Iraq-Syria forces battling ISIS. So here are some ideas the U.S. government could look into. First; the U.S. government did not at one point say they were definately; or very certain there will be U.S. ground forces being deployed to Iraq-Syria. Second; the NATO coaltion members already said what they were going to contribute in the battle against ISIS. Which was during the time the coaltion was formed. From that point; no one made any complaints. Someone should have said something then. The coalition members outlined their plans at the time; they probably thought they didnt need to do anything else afterwards. Long story short; will the U.S. government deploy ground forces or not. Will the public support the decision of the U.S. government in the Iraq-Syria conflict. Will the military forces in Iraq-Syria hold on their own. How long will the Iraq-Syria airstrike campaign hold up. Well until next time. This is article 37 of The Fast-Read. The next political edition of The Fast-Read; tune in next time viewers.
Posted on: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:43:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015