Você está na página 1de 5

1) Intro

a) Why I choose to research the U.S. continued involvement in Iraq.


b) Why it is important in general
c) Introduce topics- brief history of the U.S. and Iraq, Why the U.S. got involved in
Iraq,
2) History of the U.S. and Iraq
a) President Reagan's support of Saddam Hussein
i) Why he did this
ii) What happened as a result
b) The H.W. Bush administration
i) Operation desert storm/ shield
c) 911 and the W. Bush Administration
i) “War on Terror”
ii) Overthrow of Saddam and Civil War
3) U.S. policies and interventions in Iraq
a) The transition of power from the U.S. to the Iraqi Government
b) ISIS and ISIL
4) What the U.S. is doing now
a) Iraq as a FOB for other Middle East conflicts
b) Rebuilding and training the Iraq military
References

Tristam, P. (2018, August 14). U.S. Policy in the Middle East: 1945 to 2008. Retrieved from
https://www.thoughtco.com/us-and-middle-east-since-1945-2353681

This source has a general overlook of U.S. involvement in the Middle East through

the different presidents from 1945 to 2008. The article gives a historical timeline of events that

the U.S. has been involved in. From the creation of Israel to Operation Desert Storm the U.S. has

been heavily involved in Middle Eastern politics. This article is not persuasive in its manner but

recounts the facts of history. This article has given me greater insight into the background of the

modern problems we still encounter today. This article ends with the Bush administration, but

there have been many developments in the Middle East since then that the article negeltics. The

article does not shed much light on the current U.S. involvement and why the troops are still

deployed in the Middle East However, big events for example, like the creation of Israel,

Operations Desert Storm/Shield, the Camp David Accords connect to my other sources. These

are all events that has lead up to the current U.S. involvement in the Middle East. The source

builds to the current situation in the Middle East does not explain the future.

Brennan, R., Ries, C., Hanauer, L., Connable, B., Kelly, T., McNerney, M., . . . JEFFREY, A.

(2013). The First Six Years. In Ending the U.S. War in Iraq: The Final Transition,

Operational Maneuver, and Disestablishment of United States Forces-Iraq (pp. 21-64).

RAND Corporation. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt5hhwfg.11
This article goes into detail the U.S. trying to end the war in Iraq. From combat

operations and transition of power this article details the steps the U.S. took to get out of Iraq and

let the Iraqi government take over. The article details the military’s new role as peacekeepers,

who were specifically now trained to fight insurgencies. A role the military was not yet adapted

for. Also, the article mentions the many programs that went into rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure

and military. A large amount of humanitarian aid came to Iraq to ease the transition from

Saddam Hussein to an independent Government. What this article does very well is look at the

challenges faced by the American Government and the Iraqi Government. Also, this article talks

more in dept about U.S. military intervention and the role U.S. troops play in Iraq, both past and

present. Another point I really like about this article is at the end it gives insight and

recommendations for the U.S. policies. Using the mistakes the U.S. encountered in Iraq as

lessons learned. This gives the reader a good insight into what can be expected going forward,

not just in Iraq, but in any country the U.S. invades.

Landy, J., & Landy, J. (2004). The U.S. Occupation of Iraq: Questions for the Peace
Movement. ​New Politics​, 9(4), 19–31. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/60688991/

This is a argumentative article very much against the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The article

does a good job at pointing out the many mistakes of the U.S. in Iraq. The article points out how

much “big business” has played a role in Iraq and the consequences of their actions. The article

makes the point that the U.S. has skewed plans for Iraq as big business is using the Iraq war to

profit off of and to secure profit in the post war Iraq. The article does seem to contradict itself

when it comes to the occupation. For example, the U.S. occupation is keeping country united but
if the troops leave then a civil war could break out as different groups fight to gain control of the

country. This is not a desired outcome, and the article notes the importance a U.S. occupation

provides but still is adamant about a total troop withdrawal. However, I like how the article

considers all aspects of the occupation and tests the outcome of a total troop withdrawal. This

article, although dated, has good insight into the opposition of the U.S. occupation and the many

folies and underlying motives for the continuation of the Iraq war.

Taylor, A. (2019, February 07). Do U.S. troops have a future in Iraq? Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/02/07/do-us-troops-have-future-iraq/?ut
m_term=.9b7c0838ab53

This article reports the current U.S president’s attitude about the future of U.S. and Iraq

relations. The article remains neutral and does not pick a side, instead, it uses quotes from

domestic and foreign leaders to present the current and future U.S. actions in Iraq. The article

gives a very good overview of the current U.S. military and its goals in Iraq and explains why

they are still there. Another thing this article does very well is explaining how Iraq fits into the

greater conflicts in the Middle East. For example, Iraq is a neighboring country of Syria and Iran

were U.S. intervention and tensions run high. The article does present a question to reader which

is thought proving one about the future. If Iraq ejects U.S. troops, how would Trump react? This

makes the reader think but also the article does not answer its own question as to what would

happen. The article states that the Trump administration and its goals in the Middle East do not

aline. That does not answer the question in my opinion but provides more questions. Such as
why do the goals not a line and what should be done differently? This article is not out to make

policy suggestions so this question seems out of place.