The first strategic option: the escalation of the operation by increasing the number of soldiers. This includes troops from U.S, alliances, and partners in the theater. Budgetary increment on modernizing military equipment would give strategic advantages to forces to have more credible intelligence on the ISIS big picture. Artificial intelligence (AI) system and military threat assessment units (MTAU) will increase forces efficiency and capability to act speedily and quickly to accurate ISIS identified targets without causing collateral damage. American, alliances and partners will have a footprint and projections of military capabilities.
The second strategic option: to enhance and improve diplomatic relations with Russia. The U.S. and Russia
…show more content…
This option is feasible as it is clear and is aligned with international laws and Geneva Convention hence acceptable. Due to risks envisaged in this option the desired end state cannot be achieved as Congress and allies will not sustain the protracted ISIS war. This option envisages the following risks: first, the multitudes of causalities from both U.S, allies and partners would create a negative perception within domestic politics and a high likelihood to fracture the coalition cohesiveness. Second, the protracted war might cause the alliances and partners to withdraw due to unforeseen budgetary constraints. Third, the prolongation of the ISIS war in Iraq, Syria, and the bordering countries might cause a negative attitude towards the U.S and coalition forces as a result of the destruction of identity, values, and ritual beliefs in these …show more content…
Ideally, Russia and U.S would work together however, this is not going to work because of the following risks: an improved relations with Russia might require first, the U.S might drop its opposition to the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea, and the lifting of sanctions against top Russian officials to punish the land grab from Ukraine. Second, in Syria, the U.S may need to abandon its support for moderate rebels and align with the regime accused of war crimes and behind brutal violence in Aleppo. Last, NATO members may be shaken by rapprochement between the White House and the Kremlin following Trump’s campaign trail critiques of the alliance. Therefore both Congress, alliances, public home will not accept and will not support it towards achieving the desired