Given this framework, a legitimate question remains as to whether President Obama’s decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan met the criteria inherent in the Rational Actor Model. Upon winning the presidential election, President Obama quickly learned how crucial, yet difficult to resolve the war on terror had become. While President Bush had largely ignored Afghanistan and Pakistan to focus on counterinsurgency in Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban had grown unchecked in the volatile border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan as the Pakistani government continued to capitulate to the terrorists’ strength and sign over territorial control to extremist groups. President Obama’s national security advisors thus warned him that terrorist activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan posed an imminent and real threat to the United States and its interests in the Middle East.
President Obama first attempted to address this Afghanistan-Pakistan problem by committing 17,000 troops to safeguard the integrity of Afghanistan’s presidential election. After the election, US troops
…show more content…
Now that he had distinctly different options, President Obama needed to pick from amongst the different numbers of troops he could deploy. To do so rationally, the President ultimately needed to pick the option whose consequences ranked highest in his “payoff function,” or the option with consequences best in line with his initial goals (i.e., maximization). Making this rational decision also involved the president’s beliefs, as the uncertainty behind consequences meant that President Obama needed to rely on his beliefs about the world to assign consequences to particular options. So, in going through each option, one can come to understand how President Obama’s final decision to deploy 30,000 troops took the consequences of each option into account and thereby complied with the final set of requirements for
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States was incredibly eager to strike back at the nations thought to be responsible for this horrific tragedy. These attacks were quickly attributed to the terrorist group al-Qa’ida, led by Osama bin Laden, and to the Taliban-run government of Afghanistan, which had provided sanctuary to al-Qa’ida. In response, Washington approved a covert plan led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to directly attack those responsible in their Middle East safe haven. Initiated on 26 September 2001 with the approval of the warlords of the Afghan Northern Alliance, with whom the CIA had formed an intelligence liaison relationship, Operation Jawbreaker resulted in the fall of the Taliban regime, the killing and capture of a significant amount of al-Qa’ida leadership, and elimination of a terrorist safe haven by early December 2001. Moreover, the Taliban’s collapse denied al-Qa’ida a pseudo-nation-state partner, serving to reduce the organization’s sanctuary to areas residing along the Pakistani border. Operation Jawbreaker, one of the first post-9/11 covert operations carried out by the United States in support of its national security interests, had proved successful. Word of the operation’s swift success astounded those back in Washington; dubbed the CIA’s “finest hour,” it signified the first of many victories by deposing the Taliban’s control of Northern Afghanistan.
Through Paul Quirk’s three presidency models that are self-reliant, minimalist, and strategic competence, we learn that there are three models that show us how the presidents use one of them to implement in the term of their presidency (POLS510 Lesson). According to Paul Quirk’s definitions about these three models, each and every president would be easily classified because of their governing style, such as being self-reliant that a president knows everything and is confident what to do and how to act, being minimalist that a president does not need to understand every and each political events and activities what’s going around homeland and world, and the president’s secretaries would take care of everything, and being strategic competence
Can you imagine president controlling your life? The constitution use three different forms to make a group or a person from getting too much power on his hands. The are three types of power that each contusion have in order to keep power equal. One of them is Legislative Branch Congress “Can approve Presidential nominations”(Document C). It’s a example how governments try to keep power equal.
The United States has again stumbled into an overseas quagmire from which there is no easy exit. History seems to be repeating itself when again, we are led by a group of men who launch wars without exit strategies and fail to understand the nature of their enemy. In Vietnam the United States became involved because they felt the need to stop the spread of communism throughout the rest of Asia and attempt to prevent the "domino effect." The belief is that if Vietnam fell, so then would Cambodia, Laos, etc. Vietnam was the longest U.S. war with its never ending deaths, escalating destruction of Vietnam and Cambodia, and growing danger of splitting the American people (Carter 28). In Vietnam the Americans were told that U.S. was there because the South Vietnamese asked us to save them from the communist threat. But what the soldiers experienced did not add up to what the American people were being told (Thura 9). Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein, eliminate him from power, abolish Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from aiding terrorist groups. (Anderson 5). In Iraq the soldiers are anxious with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein no longer in power the reason why U.S. is still fighting in Iraq when the war was declared over a year ago is questionable (Moore 19).
“Over the past century, Canadian attitudes towards the use of force and the exercise of military power in support of national aims have fundamentally shifted”. This is a quote written by Major Todd Strickland in his article, titled, “From the Boers to the Taliban: How Canadians Attitudes towards War Have Changed”. This article reviews Canada’s history within the wars and also Canadian’s thoughts on war. The Afghan war began in 2001 and is still ongoing today. The war began due to the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11th, 2001, also known as 9/11. The purpose of this war was to invade Afghanistan and to disassemble an organization, known as the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Another objective was to dismantle the Taliban government. The Taliban government was simply to blame for the deaths of so many Americans on 9/11. The leader, brains and financial support behind this organization was one by the name of Osama bin Laden. Because his country did not surrender him, the United States made the decision to declare war on Afghanistan and fight for those who lost their lives in 9/11. Canada became involved in the Afghan War very quickly after the attacks of 9/11. Because the Afghanistan war is a war that is constantly covered by the media, it makes the information overwhelming. To narrow the topic down, this paper will focus mainly on the Canadian’s involvement in the Afghanistan war. Violent political wars have been reoccurring for as long as anyone can remember, and the intensity of this violence continues to rise. The magnitude of political violence involved, the main interpretations on the causes of political violence, and the prospects for conflict resolution are all topics that will be covered...
we really aren’t choosing to do it at all and that the choice was already made. In Catch 22
World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by radiation, in the towns of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately placed the United States in the same group as the Japanese and the Germans. What are the alternatives other than dropping the two A-bombs and was it right? The United States and President Truman should have weighed their opting a little bit more before deciding to drop both atomic bombs on the Islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the case of dropping the atomic bombs the United States did not make the right decision. This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice.
... landing on the president for putting the soldiers out in the jungles of an un-winnable war. In conclusion, there are just too many people and too many things to place blame easily for this disturbing event. So the easy road was taken, just do not let this happen again. The military took time out to think about their training of soldiers. "Commanders sent troops in the Desert storm operation into battle with the words, “No My Lais—you hear?” (Linder) History is said to be good for one reason- to learn from past mistakes so they will not be repeated, and that is a very good lesson to learn from My Lai and one that all hope was, in fact, learned.
...”. He further claims that bin Laden’s death was a great achievement and “we’ve disrupted terrorists’ attacks and strengthened our homeland”, but “his death is not the end of our effort”. In order to justify the need for military troops to remain in Afghanistan, he stated that “we must remain vigilant at home and abroad”.
Both sides of the war had suffered tremendous losses and the numbers would have continued to grow over the course of the war. By choosing to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, I believe the lives saved in the long run outweigh the initial number of lives lost. There is no way to put a price of one human life against another, but the total number of deaths prevented could have been multitudes compared to the hundred thousand killed in the atomic blasts. From the numbers alone, I support President Truman’s utilitarian
George W. Bush’s engagement of liberating Afghanistan and Iraq were vital in preserving the lives of the citizens both countries and illustrates how he will be vindicated by historians. The former president conveyed his concerns regarding the newly established democracy in the country during a Press Conference: “I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul” . Bush is correct for the decisions during his presidency as he was able to liberate Iraq from the authoritarianism of Saddam Hussein and liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban regime. In March 20th 2003, George W. Bush made history as he went onward with removi...
On September 11, 2001, the most disastrous terrorist attack in U.S. history left a countless number of innocent Americans both dead and missing. The Taliban’s assault on the Pentagon and annihilation of New York’s World Trade Center caused the entire country to wonder what was going on in the rest of the world to cause so much animosity toward our great nation. Little did many American citizens know that this shocking catastrophe was the result of years of unrest and chaos in the Middle East. The tragic events of September 11th occurred as a result of the recent, political history of Afghanistan, the development of the radical Islamic group, the Taliban, and the monetary and military support that the Taliban has received.
Mingst, Karen A., and Jack L. Snyder. Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walter, The Strategies of Terrorism. Essential Readings in World Politics. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
On July 1, 2016, the President of the United States, also known as the current commander in Chief, Barack Obama sent out an Executive Order that states the purpose of it as being a, “United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict.” He speaks about the national interests at heart such as the nation’s values and our legal obligations. Obama uses ethics within his order by adding the importance of our values. In his order he explains how the nation is seen as one whole community and he does it by not singling any race or religion out or having any numbers enclosed in his order. As the president of the United States, his position comes with the occupation to look out for
Along with the financial costs, there is human cost with the loss of life of civilians, Canadian soldiers. The invasion of Afghanistan is only a short term solution to a bigger problem. When Canada and other nations leave the country, the Taliban and the warlord tribes will continue to insight fear on the Afghan citizens (Endersby, 2011). Conclusion Canada’s involvement has brought about a continuous debate on whether or not they should be in Afghanistan fighting a war that is half a world away. The events of September 11, 2001 in the United States reinforced the need to fight terrorism on a global scale.