Threat From the East

When we think of threats to America, we often think of terrorism as the greatest danger. Although this problem persists, I believe North Korea has the greatest potential for caisson harm to the U.S. Since the Korean War in the 1950s, relations between the North and the South have been almost non-existent. With the North's ever-expanding nuclear missile program, the danger only increases.

Photo

To give some background information, the strained relationship between the U.S. and North Korea began on July 25, 1950, when 75,000 soldiers from the Soviet-backed North Korean People's Army poured into the South. The U.S. came to the aid of the South Koreans, who would have otherwise been beaten. After three, long years of ear, an armistice was signed and 5 million people, including 40,000 Americans were dead. The Korean War is a forgotten part of history, but one that is a necessary to understanding the complex political climate of today. 

Any U.S. bases in S. Korea. Photo

Today, the threat of war is as real as ever. In fact, the U.S. and South Korea are technically still at war with the North, as an official end to the war was never finalized. 

Just this week, according to a U.S. News and World Report article, a North Korean defector explained how the leader of the country, Kim Jong Un, is "desperate" to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. The defector, Pyongyang's former deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom, also expressed how "The world should be ready to deal with this kind of person." But are we really ready?

The short is yes. And we've been taken various steps to deal with the regime for years. Apart from economic sanctions, the U.S. and South Korea have been keen to employ a strong military presence in the region. While, the North Korean armed forces may outnumber their adversaries two-to-one, their equipment is largely obsolescent and their training is suspected to be poor as well. In contrast, the South Koreans enjoy the most modern equipment supplied by the U.S., as well as superior training and the support of 28,500 permanently stationed U.S. troops.

Recently, in the wake of continuing North Korean nuclear tests and threats, the U.S. deployed its most advanced missile defense system—the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD).  This move is protested by China who fears its "radar could see into its missile deployments." Of course, it's no surprise that China would be upset about this because of China and North Korea's historic friendliness.

THAAD— Photo

Still, this past Saturday, it was reported that President Trump called on Chinese President Xi Jingping to help the U.S. deal with North Korea's nuclear program. President Trump cited China's "great influence" over the North. However, since the election of Trump, U.S. relations with China have been uncertain and it is unlikely that Beijing will cooperate. Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter explained how "he's been working on the North Korean problem since 1994" and he isn't optimistic about the Chinese joining forces with the U.S. I think an uncooperative China is the most probable course of action, as we are the best of friends with China.

U.S. Marines and S. Korean troops. Photo 

The threat the North Koreans pose is a very real one. I think people do not take this issue for how serious it is—a nation is threatening us with nukes. With the North's expanding technology and unpredictable nature, I think it is in our best interest to keep a close eye on this historic enemy. Economic sanctions on the country have had little effect due to the North Koreans' ability to shield their upper class from any burden Recent attempts. Additionally, recent attempts to ally ourselves with China, the great "influencer," show little promise for the future. Finding a way do deal with North Korea in the most effective manner proves to be an elusive challenge.

Do you feel that North Korea's threats are unlikely to come to reality, or do you think there is a real and present danger to the U.S.? Do you think we should be taking more aggressive steps to hinder the North Korean nuclear program?

Syria...Again?

Syria is in the news yet again! And we just learned the U.S. unveiled a big surprise—troops on the ground. In my last blog, I discussed how the U.S. hadn't physically intervened in Syria except for airstrikes and the occasional clandestine mission by special operations forces. In the past few weeks, the U.S. has shown a dramatic turn of events.

As early as March 6, 2017, news outlets reported the United States had sent U.S. Army Rangers, supported by armored fighting vehicle to Syria. If you aren't familiar with Army Rangers, they are the United States' premier fighting force. Classified as special operations forces, they are highly trained and very effective.

American flags fly proudly over the Rangers. Photo

The Rangers were sent along with Marines and artillery howitzers. The troops arrived in armored vehicles with American flags proudly flying. This overt display of American presence in the region suggests that things are heating up. Only a few weeks ago, America was only launching airstrikes. By having a strong physical presence on the ground, we are sending a much more ominous message to the terrorists and to the rest of the world.


The situation in Syria is more complicated than what you might first think. While you could say the U.S. has "good" relations with Turkey politically, the state of affairs in the country tells a different story. Turkey is extremely unstable, as Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) spokesman suggests when he explains the SDF have taken "heavy attacks...by ISIS from south and Turkish, pro extremist militias from west, with heavy clashes." In layman's terms, the SDF and the United States' Kurdish allies, the The People's Protection Unit (YPG), are not only fighting ISIS terrorists, but other extremists, including those from Turkey.

The U.S. works closely with the YPG. Photo

This is all rather confusing, but it's part of the reason U.S. troops were sent to Syria. According to Jeff Davis, a Defense Department spokesman, "We have made visible actions in deploying U.S. forces...to reassure and deter." He elaborates, "That's to deter parties from attacking any other parties than ISIS itself." It is clear that the U.S. presence deters any attacks on our allies from outside extremist groups. Also apparent is the hyper-focus on the destruction of ISIS. The overall aim of our government as well as others is to focus on the annihilation of the terror group that is at the center of the violence and instability in the Middle East.

This latest development in Syria could yield some positive results, although controversial. For instance, a U.S.-led coalition of troops is moving to secure the city of Raqqa, one of the last ISIS strongholds in Syria. In fact, coalition spokesman U.S. Air Force Colonel John Dorrain said the effort to isolate Raqqa was "going very very well." From this account and from our trust in our armed forces, I believe we can assume we will have great success in Syria.

A few hundred U.S. Marines are in Syria. Photo

In his powerful address to Congress on February 28, President Trump vowed, "We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet." So far, President Trump is keeping his promise and making big decisions to destroy the terrorist organization. Because troops were sent to Syria only recently, we will have to wait to see their long-term effects and if more personnel will be sent in the coming months.


I understand how sending in U.S. ground troops can be a controversial move—it may anger extremist groups or create more instability. However, I believe this is a powerful and necessary move. Although airstrikes are effective, their potential for unwanted destruction is a major drawback. With actual U.S. Soldiers and Marines on the ground, fighting will be more surgical, as compared to a massive bomb.

Do you think this latest development will work out in favor of the U.S.? Share your thoughts below.

A Syrious Issue

A territory engulfed in total war. Land ravished by death and violence. Barbaric groups fighting one another in hopes of grabbing more land.

Widespread destruction in Syria. Photo

This doesn't sound like something that could happen in the modern world, but more like the happenings of Medieval times or actions akin to those of the Romans. Unfortunately though, this is the reality that Syria is forced to endure. A reality in which violent extremist groups are emerging and a reality where Syrians are killing Syrians. The extent of the crisis in Syria is almost hard for us to comprehend. Not even I could believe just how dire the situation was while I was researching it.



You may also expect the U.S. to intervene on a grand scale with all our military might. This, again, is not the case. But don't start drawing conclusions just yet. Perhaps one of the most crucial reasons you don't see America invading Syria like we invaded France in WWII or Kuwait in 1991, is that American's, simply put, have had enough.

Many Syrians lack basic essentials, like food and shelter. Photo

As The Atlantic affirms, the U.S. goes through cycles of interventions. For instance, at the start of the cycle, we may intervene in a foreign land for security or humanitarian reasons, like we did in Kuwait to oust the Iraqis. Then the American public becomes decreasingly tolerant of the monetary and human cost of our intervention. Then, we don't want to intervene for a while until we feel pressured by moral concerns or security interests.

Unfortunately for Syria, as The Atlantic points out, Syria is in a bad place at a bad time. Americans are tired of our continued efforts in the Middle East which have cost thousands of American lives and billions of taxpayer dollars. This is, of course bad news for Syrians wishing to flee to their war-torn homeland in search of refuge. In fact, the U.S. has accepted around 12,000 refugees since the start of the conflict in Syria in 2011, which doesn't sound like a lot when you realize 11 million Syrians have been displaced.  The U.S. really only started to accept these people after "Barack Obama made the commitment under pressure from Europe and the United Nations for the US to play a bigger role in confronting the global refugee crisis," according to The Guardian. This further proves how Americans are weary to get involved, after years spent in the Middle East.

Syrian refugees. Photo

However, don't think that America is just standing by—despite our lack of ground forces, the U.S. is sending hundreds of millions of dollars of aid and a slew of technology to help remedy the conflict.

Since 2011, the U.S. has given nearly $6 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to Syria, including a $364 million expenditure in September 2016. This money helps the UN and other organizations bring basic provisions to those in need, such food, water and medicine. This huge expenditure of money is a step in the right direction, as around 13.5 million people are in need of humanitarian aid in Syria. Personally, I support the U.S. funding of these humanitarian efforts because I feel we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. 

But we aren't just sending money. We are sending American might in the form of airstrikes to wipe out extremist groups like al Qaeda. Just last month, in January, The New York Times reported that an American bomber aircraft killed more than 100 al Qaeda fighters in a training camp in Syria. Extremist groups are taking advantage of Syria's state of complete chaos. Still, the U.S., although not on the ground en masse, is waging war from the air in an attempt to stabilize the region. 

Smoke from an airstrike in Syria. Photo

Unfortunately, like the drone-strikes I wrote about in an earlier blog, airstrikes can cause civilian casualties. The principal argument against our use of air power in Syria is that collateral damage is too likely with the enemy in such close proximity to innocent lives. These airstrikes have killed hundreds of people and the U.S. isn't acknowledging them, according to The Guardian. This has led some people to wonder if our use of technology in the skies is ethical. 

Ultimately, I think our humanitarian aid and use of air power are effective ways of helping the ailing country of Syria. But what do you think? Should we send more money? More airstrikes or a ground invasion? I want to hear your thoughts!

Does Iraq Still Like Us?

You've probably heard of President Trump's travel ban. If you haven't, just know that it temporarily denies entry for 90 days people from the countries of Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Somalia. These countries are known to be sympathetic to terrorists and other people who wish harm on the United States, but is the ban hurting our hard fought diplomacy efforts? This is not a simple question. But let us have a look into reasons why someone might oppose this ban.

The seven countries affected by the ban. Photo: CNN.com

For one, the U.S. has fought, physically and politically to help diplomatic relations in the Middle East. It should be noted that one strategy for achieving success in the War on Terror is winning over the hearts and minds of the populace. We frequently see this with U.S. troops giving candy to children and holding councils with village elders in Iraq and Afghanistan. By connecting with the locals, U.S. troops show their mission is to help the people and not to destroy their towns.

A U.S. Navy Corpsman giving candy to local children. Photo: citizensreachout.org

Additionally, humanitarian and development projects help prove the U.S. good intentions in the Middle Eastern region. For instance, with the recent rise of the terror group ISIS, the United States' humanitarian efforts have been redoubled to meet increasing need. Among some of the assistance given are child protection activities, water sanitation, and hygiene services. Also to be noted are the hundreds of millions of dollars we give in foreign aid to Iraq alone.

So why is all of this important? Well, the United States has spent a lot of time and money invested in stabilizing the Middle East and helping the people who need it most. With President Trump's travel ban, some fear that all of the effort has gone to waste.

President Trump after signing the executive order. Photo: archinect.com

Of the most impassioned opponents for the ban are leaders of Muslim majority countries, specifically the ones outlined in the ban. According to one source, Iraqi government said it understood the security motives behind the travel ban but felt that the U.S. should have considered the "special relationship" between the two countries. Another statement from a popular Iraqi spokesperson called for the explosion of all Americans on Iraqi soil, even as thousands of U.S. troops are still stationed there.

These feelings are not limited to the leaders of Iraq. Many people want to leave the U.S. for a better life, just as Germans and Italians and many other people of various nationalities have in the past. Some of these people include those who have helped American troops and now live in fear of retaliation from terror groups.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. Photo: yahoo.com

 The feeling among many people, including world leaders, is that President Trump's ban is a "Muslim ban" or, at the very least, a "divisive" policy, as Britain's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson stated. Still, in an unexpected move, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi rejected pro-Iranian and other Iraqis suggestion of a retaliatory ban of Americans in Iraq.  He did this in favor of keep good relations with theUnited States as the two countries continue to eradicate the ISIS threat.

The travel ban is meant to increase security from foreign terror threats, but no people have been killed by anyone from any of the seven countries on the list from 1975 to 2015, although multiple arrests have been made for plotting terror attacks against the U.S. Opponents of the ban think these numbers are worth the negative consequences of the ban, while proponents value the preventive nature of the exclusion.

What do you think? Will President Trump new executive order tarnish our relations we have worked so hard for? Or do you feel that the U.S. is better protected with bans like the one President Trump has instituted? In any case, let's support the our president and wish he does the best for our country.

The War Drones On

We are at war. The United States is still involved in its longest military conflict in history—the War on Terror. Since the attacks on 9/11, we have all lived with the constant, nagging thought of future terrorist strikes. Thankfully, we have the most well trained, technologically advanced military in the world (can I get U-S-A chant?) and, increasingly, our armed forces rely on technology, specifically drones, to take the fight to the enemy. However, the American public struggles with the morality of the "Drone War."

If you don't know anything about military drones, they are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are used by every branch of the military for reconnaissance and offensive purposes. Vehicles like the Predator and the Reaper are examples of drones that carry deadly Hellfire missiles.

A MQ-9 Reaper in flight. Note the missiles under the wing. Photo via  af.mil

Notwithstanding public criticism, drones strikes have been frequent and successful in taking out enemy fighters in recent years. In fact, from 2009 to the summer of 2016, the government stated that 473 strikes had killed between 2,372 and 2,581 combatants. These fighters are said to have belonged to groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The beauty of waging war with drones is that no U.S. personnel are directly put at risk when engaging the enemy, as the operator of the vehicle can be hundreds of miles away. Furthermore, the cost is relatively cheap compared to the logistical nightmare of moving troops and equipment halfway across the world.

Drone pilots conducting operations safely away from the battlefield. Photo via military.com

In addition, proponents of Drone Warfare say UAVs have the added benefit of being politically friendly. What I mean by this is that they are easy to deploy. The decision to send robots to a war zone is an easy decision for politicians to make. In contrast, sending "boots on the ground" to a foreign land elicits divergent opinions in political spheres.

Unfortunately, these deadly robots aren't perfect. According to the New York Times, an estimated 64 to 116 non-combatants have been killed from 2009 to 2016. However, it's hard to be sure of specific numbers, as different sources speculate on reported civilian death tolls versus the actual numbers. In any case, the loss of innocent lives is repulsive. Adding to the problems, the death of civilians can evoke hatred toward America in Middle Eastern communities.

Still, it's clear that Obama's decision to increase drone usage was based on good moral grounds; however, some have condemned the "Drone War" as a detestable part of his legacy. Among the most impassioned opponents to UAVs are the people who are directly affected—the locals in war zones.

Only 9% of Pakistanis support drone strikes. Photo via aljazeera.com

In Pakistan, a country in which the U.S. frequently conducts drone operations, only 9% of its citizens  support the use of armed UAVs. These numbers are not surprising when you realize that in a five year period, around 250-600 Pakistani civilians have reportedly been killed by drones. Although these numbers cannot be known for certain, it's still an indication of how the flying robots are not without flaw.

Undoubtedly, drones have their pros and cons, but the question of whether or not the U.S. should continue to use armed, unmanned vehicles is a matter of life and death.  According to Brown University, from the 2003 to 2015, 4,489 U.S. military and 3,481 U.S. contractors were killed in Iraq alone. Despite the risk of collateral damage, I find that statistics and evidence points favorably to U.S. drone usage.

As a member of Army ROTC and someone who could actually be deployed one day, using drones seems like an obvious choice to me. They offer a method to wage war in which soldiers' lives are not put at risk. Additionally, UAVs can be used to support ground troops. In any case, I believe the U.S. should continue to use drones.

U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Indeed, the non-combatant death doll attributed to UAVs is terrible. But with the enemy so close to friendly non-combatants, it is a sad, yet inevitable reality, that guiltless lives will be lost. Therefore, I don't think drones should be viewed as an evil tool of senseless destruction. On the contrary, their artificial nature serve as a means of mitigating death. I think a drone's ability to save American lives is worth their potential drawbacks. With advances in the software of these machines, I think UAVs will only become more useful in the future. Their technology allows them to be more accurate than a conventional piece of artillery and, in the event a drone is lost in combat, no one will shed a tear.