There she is, that lovely girl who attends world class studies with plenty to say and a time set for saying it. She is often patient and benevolent, but lately she has been troubled by the indiscretion of her peers. As her agitation inflates for the recruiting and beheadings of American citizens as well as expectations to keep the peace, she scrutinizes her possibilities. Can she afford the confrontation? The United States is that girl. One of the most envied and successful countries in the world, the United States has been subjected to terrorist threats from small organizations abroad, and although some say that America is more than able to handle this war - controversy still arises for American involvement. America should not condone confrontation. The United States cannot afford the debt rising at hourly rates, the collateral damage, or the disapproval of a little over half of American citizens?

The United States is in debt. Taxpayers are reimbursing the leftover expenses of the last Iraq war and the United States is preoccupied with making that bearable. The United States has to ensure efficient finances for its veterans returning home, execute military cuts, and replenish the prosperity of domestic capitalism. The United States has fallen victim to engaging in wars that are ceaseless and having no permanent resolution. The war that spawned the terrorists organization ISIS was the Afghan-American War, the most recent war in American history beginning in 2001 and ending in 2011. ISIS is a terrorist group branching from Al-Qaeda of 2001, who were responsible for taking planes and expunging the World Trade Centers in New York City. The World Trade Centers in lower Manhattan New York were the most important buildings in the world - representing over 740,000 businesses worldwide and, in the United States, employing and killing roughly fifty thousand people (Memorial 1). These buildings were the symbol of financial prosperity, having international deals and currency flowing within the very walls thereof. So, once Al-Qaeda is killed, the United States should do everything in its power not to relive such a calamity.

On account of American troops abiding in Iraq and Syria, overtime nearly 21 billion dollars were affixed, annually, toward campaigns to deface both ISIS and the Assad Regime as well as to the protection of the Syrians (Bilmes 1). America was unable to pay for these expenses alone. One of America’s previous wars, specifically the Gulf War, costed around 12 billion dollars annually - leaving American finances in shambles (2). In order for the United States to become active in the Iraq and Syrian conflict, the country would have to borrow money. Linda Bilmes asserts that “the U.S. already borrowed some $2 trillion to pay for the invasion and occupation of the Iraq and Syrian conflict, a major contributor to the exceeding growth in the national debt from $6.4 trillion in 2003 to $17.7 trillion today” (3). The insufficiency of U.S. wealth is being squandered on the civil conflicts of other republics rather than receiving revenue in household incomes from jobs with minimum wages that could be increased.

Oil prices and taxes have elevated since the intervention of the Iraqi conflicts. Subsequently entering the battle of Iraq and Afghanistan, in those ten years oil prices have fluctuated upward. Linda Bilmes has found that “oil prices increased from $25 a barrel in 2003 to a peak of $140 in 2008” (Bilmes 3). United States civilians must balance these capital demands with the money from their pockets. Taxes surge during wartime so the soldiers are provided with every and anything they need. With every passing hour, taxpayers are funding 312,000 dollars on military action against ISIS, and 365,000 dollars to the overall cost of the war in Iraq (Federal Agency). Spending American funds on ensuring the well-being of other republics while America is on the brink of ruins, is an unpopular action. The Federal agency of National Security records that roughly 2.71 million dollars are swiped from the pockets of taxpayers and lodged into the pockets of foreign aid (2). These numbers are consistent and rising. Americans find this data unsettling due to the 5.8 percent unemployment rate in the United States (Labor Statistics 1). Many citizens would be outraged if they were made aware of how costly Iraq was and that they were paying for it.

Primarily in such a dispute as the ‘War on Terror’, terrorism thrives on collateral damage. To bomb mass social events kindred to the Boston Marathon (which may have been the work of ISIS recruits) and the beheading of American journalists, are collateral damage cases  - a new style of war posed notably by every terrorist regime since 2001 and even before. These components, although distasteful, they are minor. These frivolous attempts of aggression are not worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and even enlisting high school students and college attendees. Linda Bilmes suggested that “America seemed to be on the brink of a new era -- ready to shut off the Iraq-Afghanistan funding faucet, bring its troops home, and enjoy a peace dividend” (Bilmes 1). And, America should concur, entirely.

The citizens of the United States should not support going after a mere group of individuals, should not be interested in the continuous interfering with the civil conflicts of other nations, and lastly - American citizens deem these wars ‘time consuming’ and unsuccessful. ISIS consists of a mere 8,000 individuals roughly, and although they are recruiting and enlarging throughout the middle East, Napolitano argues that “There is no bona fide American national security interest in jeopardy because of the persistent Iraq civil war, and we have no lawful right to choose a side and assist it militarily” (Napolitano 3). These wars waging overseas are internal. The president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, has been labeled a corrupt; anti-democratic leader, who has been deemed untrustworthy in the eyes of the United States and the Syrians (2). Because of this injustice inflicted upon the Syrians, rebels have risen in response. The influence of America can only expand but so far until America is in disarray and realises that no nation can offer relief.

Three generations worth of distrust, hatred, and an aching desire for vengeance has sweltered up between the Middle Easterners and the United States Democracy as of this moment. To constantly revisit those relations, would not be wise but wasteful. The best resolution America can conclude - is to abandon the Middle Eastern nations. The obstructions must cease in order that America is not harmed and does not have a reason to be. Napolitano affirms that ensuing ISIS would be “another pointless effort to bring democracy to a culture that has persistently rejected it” (Napolitano 2). However, Iraq and Afghanistan must settle their internal strife, they have been given a hand and they have bitten it, so they must resolve the issue on their own dime. This resolution would be a constructive one.

America has been driven by profit, having been promoting terrorism in order that America would engage in warfare. America is one of the most powerful countries on the face of the Earth, and to keep it that way, America has to stir up a bit of controversy inside more feeble nations, play the victim for war support, and hush any person (or persons) threatening to ruin that plan. America has a critical investment in the Middle East, which is oil and gas. To attain the profit of oil in those places, the United States intruded on the unsteady governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. For a decade, beginning in the 1990’s (Gupta 561). The United States has trespassed and subjected unwarranted aggression upon these nations to fulfill American ambitions (561). America’s unjustified encroachment onto these areas did collect lucrative values in oil profit and military contracts, despite the way in which conducted. In act of stirring up controversy, America has done this so the Middle Eastern republics would retaliate. America is scarcely recognized for overrunning other countries and stripping away at them for profit, so suppose the U.S. is called on it - not many nations would believe it or else would jeopardize the partnership and profit cut out for them. This is just the advantage the United States needs. While these nations exact retribution through terrorism, Sanjay Gupta allocates that “In many cases, the US refused to accept a particular event as terrorism or sought to downplay it, made rogue states as its key allies, and at times, even passively supported and sympathized with state-sponsors of terrorism, and thus indirectly promoting terrorism” (Gupta 560). This is America’s scheme of brilliance. To use these violations as excuses to strengthen its already preeminent dictatorship, these powerless, less vocal countries are unaware of the gain they are giving the United States. The U.S. is the victim in the eyes of the world when terrorism is afoot.
America is already at war with terrorism anyhow.  September 24th of  2014 the President of the United States, Barack Obama lead an address announcing that there were to be airstrikes launched against the ISIS terrorist organization and only 1,500 or so active military personnel as ground troops over in Afghanistan ( Tan 1). Quite frankly, the war has begun and there is no stopping what the President has already put in motion. Of the American population, more than half - over 60% of U.S. citizens are in support of the airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, why argue the people (Ekins 2)? America always wins, there is faintly anything refuting that.

While supporters of war may presume America is invincible, in due time, America may lose the already crumbling foundation it is standing upon if it is to commit to this war. America would be at fault for killing civilians, supplying the enemy with the ammunition that they would have more power, and involving other nations, which could lead to an all out brawl between the nations of the world. By ignoring the ‘yellow journalism’ (a term for the media over exaggerating events) America could save itself the dept and innocent lives. Knowing that the ISIS organization is but an unadorned group of people mushrooming from “around 8,000 members” because of recruitment (Napolitano 2), the proposal to bomb Syria in hopes to rid them of ISIS is a complete failure and utter disregard for innocent life. Although, over “66% of American citizens are advocating the use of airstrikes” (Ekins 2), the backfiring result is collateral damage - just what Middle Eastern nations need as validation of Americans being just as much as terrorists as the ISIS affiliates. Sanjay Gupta noted that during the decade of the 1990’s, as the United State policies became all the more ambitious and arrogant, three large-scale wars waged on Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. “The real sufferers were the people, for instance in Iraq, where the US, through a UN resolution, imposed wide spread sanctions resulting in the death of hundreds and thousands of babies” (Gupta 561). This not only stamps America with a substandard label, but now innocent blood is on the name of American Democracy. This is not an acceptable position for America. To be the empire notorious for ‘Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness’, among the gruesome ISIS affiliates themselves, is inadmissible. Second in regards to the bombing of Syria, the terrorists are being endowed with the ammunition that are supposed to be killing them. The bombs that do not detonate would be used for their chemical materials and by sending in ground troops - ISIS would then have in their possession a few tanks and artillery pieces. A little over half of U.S. citizens are against sending ground troops to combat ISIS in Syria (Erikin 2), yet the President is making that call as well (Washington Post 10-12). The punitive attacks inflicted upon ISIS are backfiring. This is a war style unlike any other in American history; so how can America enter a fray for which they are not prepared?

America did secure allies while abroad, but drawing them into the tasks of the United States and ISIS will bring about the same problems as America involving themselves in the civil rivalries of the Syrians. The disputes and complications will just escalate. The President, in his address to the American people in relation to ISIS, did include the participation of allies. The President stated that in each of these four parts of the war strategy, America was expecting (and sort of hoping) to be accompanied by a broad coalition of partners (Washington Post 10). The President vaguely mentioned that this coalition had already been enacted by the allies of America. Broadening the quarrel would put the United States at fault for whatever compensations are required of the other countries after the full blown war. Although, the reason for this “coalition” would be to defend against the allies of the Syrian regime, it is useless to commit other nations into taking an opposition to Syria when Syria wants ISIS gone as well. America is losing sight of who they are waging war against.

America is going to sit in class and add only what is required in order that class can advance steadily. Inevitably, if there is war we cannot refuse it because of National Security Laws, but we have a choice to voice our opinion, investigate the topic, and modify the way America frames her decisions. Americans do not have to fall victim to another pointless, drawn our, life snatching, currency depriving war. The voice of America can cause just as much suffering or prosperity - without so much of the risk. America, prioritize on your welfare, that is most important.

Works Cited
Bilmes, J Linda. “CNN Opinion: Can the U.S. afford another $3 trillion war?” CNN. N.p, 27
Aug. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.
“Bureau of Labor Statistics.” United States Department of Labor. Federal Government, 22 Jan.
2015. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.
Ekins, Emily. “Poll: 66% Favor Airstrikes Against ISIS, but 52% Oppose US Sending Ground
Troops.” Reason. Reason Foundation, 10 Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Dec. 2014.
“Fighting for a U.S. federal budget that works for all Americans.” Cost of National Security.
Federal Government, 4 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
“Full text of President Obama’s 2014 address to the United Nations General Assembly.”
Washington Post N.p, 24 Sep. 2014. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.
Gupta, Sanjay. “THE CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
AND THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES: A COMPREHENSIVE AND
MULTILATERAL APPROACH TO COMBAT GLOBAL TERRORISM.” The Indian
Journal of Political Science, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Oct.-Dec., 2004), pp. 556-587. Print.
Napolitano, P Andrew. “Iraq crisis: Will US engage in another pointless war?” Foxnews. N.p,
19 June. 2014. Web. 05 Dec. 2014.
Tan, Michelle, & Tilghman, Andrew. “President Obama authorises 1,500 more troops for
Iraq.” Military Times. Gannett Company, 7 Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Jan. 2014.
“The World Trade Center History.” 9/11 Memorial. National September 11 Memorial and
Museum, N.d. Web. 28 Dec. 2014.