http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/opinion/roger-cohen-the-making-of-a-disaster.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/opinion/afghanistans-moment-of-reckoning.html?ref=opinion
Given the historical miscalculations of the US gov. and its military apparatus concerning providing Iraq/Afghanistan with fully responsive democratic governments, how must the nation proceed in ensuring stability for these middle eastern countries?
Provide 3 policy solutions for each specific case
(Utilize the opinion articles provided and any outside research you would like to include)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe nation proceed in ensuring the stability would probably be limited by the way the western countries had failures to the counter the attraction of the extremism they had . Therefore in the middle eastern countries they would have to protect countries for any attacks they would have come upon to them to ensure stability .
ReplyDeleteThe nation proceed in ensuring the stability by having a strategy to undermine the values and worldwide. If they can't succeed then everyone in society will take the challenge and come up with a strategy that will help and be a success.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the (lack of) stability in the Middle Eastern countries is not entirely due to the U.S.'s action. We, as a nation, dwell within a certain range of "Not willing to sacrifice OUR blood for theirs", and between "wanting to help the weak, poor, and voiceless". What are we to do now that we are so unwilling to go back into what would essentially be ANOTHER war on terror? We simply cannot afford another trillion dollar loss, or the loss of more American casualties, and as such we only have few options, and those are as follows;
ReplyDelete1.Destroy all sources of terroristic religious zealots seeking to conquer and destroy.
OR
2. Ignore the continuing crimes against humanity and be seen as hypocrites ourselves.
As I have mentioned previously, the US are not entirely to blame. We did our best to defend the innocent, but how were we to know that arming them would only lead to more destruction? Is there some irony in that? Perhaps more lead than iron, but yes, there is definitely some form of irony in our attempts to protect them through means of distributing weaponry, only to have them harm themselves. And while it is said that Obama "allowed" Syria to become a destitute hell-hole, he lacks the sole power to stop blatant terrorist groups eith fancy names. Our president is not the "Omnipotent, Omnipotent, God-like", creation we were taught growing up into this nation, and as such, there is not much he can do besides state that a chemical warfare solution is off-limits, and should never have to be used by the forces in Syria.
We lack, and simply do not have any control over any Middle-Eastern countries, and as such, they will be left to their own devices. We simply cannot blame ourselves for problems that have generated outside out of our own American soil, and we have no need to carelessly intervene in a steadily building war between militant countries for any reason.