first proposal - The costs outweigh the benefits of the United States pulling out of Syria as President Trump announced.  I will return your prospectus with my comments in class on Wednesday. You sho

Research Prospectus

(Student’s name)

(Professor’s name)

(Course title)

(Date of submission)

Topic: Trump decision to pull US troops from Syria lowers risks and costs.

The decision for President Donald Trump to remove U.S forces from Syria come as a sudden announcement and a shock to many. Nonetheless, the move is based on consistent key aspects of Trump’s military and foreign policy. The president had initially promised to bring back 2,000 U.S Special Forces from Syria. The announcement brought a lot of opposition from the Pentagon and from other key allies. This decision will bring negative consequences and at the same time, it will also have positive consequences. Although, time is the only thing that can be able to tell if the positive implications for the decisions will outweigh the negative ones. Hence it is important to set out both in consideration of wisdom of that decision made by the president. The national security officials have raised concerns that withdrawal of the U.S forces from Syria can cost the American credibility in that specific region. It also causes significant escalation to an already devastating conflict in that region.

Looking at the negative side of the decision is that it will cause casualties. These are the Kurdish-dominated People’s Protection Units militia. Through the years, YPG has been America’s partner and the ground force is based on U.S.-led campaign against IS in Syria. The YPG force is the only force on the ground in Syria which is loyal to America. On the other hand, the partnership between America and YPG has raised the prospect of war between the U.S and Turkey. Recip Erdogan, the Turkish dictator, threatened to launch an offensive on YPG forces. This was followed by the American President announcing to withdraw U.S Forces from Syria (Black, 2018).

Through the announcement by the president, it essentially meant Kurds were on their own. America agrees to arm and supplies the YPG forces or it means to deter Erdogan from attacking them, Syria’s Kurds will be facing unenviable choice which is between the Turks alone as well as throwing their hats in with Russia and Iran while hoping to receive some sort of protection from Turkey.

Although the U.S forces have relatively small numbers in Syria, they have a large strategic impact between the power balance in the country. The forces are deployed along the border which joins Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, the forces are able to block Iran from taking over Iraqi-Syria border which forges a land bridge which links Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. At the same time, the American forces have also been able to prevent Iran forces from attacking Jordan. Trump’s decision of removing increase the likelihood of war just as Iran’s pending seizure of the Syrian-Iraqi border increase the likelihood of war. This means that Israel will be able to find itself under attack and at war with Iran and its own proxies in Syria and Lebanon (Barnes & Barron, 2018).

The forces had been stationed in Syria to assist the Syrian Forces in fighting rebel enclaves in the desert east of the River Euphrates. Despite the claims which have been made by the president, the American forces and their allies were in a successful process of wiping out the enemy, until now. This means that the American presence in Syria is very essential, even though they are small in numbers. The US forces with Kurdish allies, hold all territories to the east of River Euphrates, which about a quarter of the entire of the entire territory of Syria. When the forces return home, America will lose an important asset which would grain its influence over whatever surface in Syria after the civil war is over. Another important asset in the region is a Special Forces base in Al-Tanf, which is near the triangle border. From this base, US air and the intelligence forces are able to operate against IS enclaves in Deir Ez-Zour area. Therefore the American departure from Syria does not bode well, from an Israeli as well as Jordanian perspective. It is the American presence which is able to block the establishments of the Quds Forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite militias which are brought into Syria near its own borders with Jordan and Israel.

One of the major benefits of withdrawing American troops is that the country will be able to stop chasing tails of a region in which there is no particular interest. Most regions can apparently be blamed for what is happening in Syria. Recently, Bush’s illegitimate war in Iraq made contributions in a major way to de-stabilize more a region which never knew stability. What followed after this was disastrous. This followed president Obama inheriting a situation which was very horrible and that which was handled poorly.

Most of the American people do not have an interest in seeing their country in danger and in a war that they do not understand or even care about. In this sense, Trump is doing what I believe most of the American would want. Surprisingly far more liberals than conservatives are agreeing to the troops leaving Syria. One of the main reason why Trump wants American troops out of Syria is due to economic reasons. It is the same reason he declared victory over the IS. The US departure does not signal America is leaving the coalition which is against IS but rather, know that the IS has lost its strongholds, the country is transitioning to the next phase of the campaign.

The announcement implies that America is letting Russia and Iran shape their own interest and a new type of order which will form in Syria at the end of the civil war. As a result of these, Iran will be able to ground its foothold in Syria through an easy way and Russia will be able to influence the Middle East which includes Iraq, and it will grow. The Kurds losing the support of a protector and adviser will have to try and seek shelter in Assad's arms while the American forces leave the areas, the turkey will start to free to attack them whenever they want.

Topic: Religion and Politics.

The relation between religion and politics has continued to be of importance in political science despite the rise of consensus on the rights to freedom of conscience and on the need on the need for some sort of separation between church and the state. One of the main significance of this topic is the fact that religion often makes strong claims on people’s allegiance, and universal religion, on the other hand, makes claims on all people rather than just a particular community of people. For example, Islam region has traditionally maintained that all people owe obedience to the will of Allah. This the main reason that region commitments will come into conflict through the demands of politics. The region beliefs and practices potentially support politics in many different ways. The form of this is very essential to politics due to the fact that it can be a possibility of a conflict. Besides, there has been an increasing interest in minority groups and more political rights are due. Due to this result of interest, there can arise a big interest in the attention that is given to a particular group who are distinguished by their religion as it is opposed to ethnicity or even gender (Gentile, 2006).

There may arise political problems as a result if the way in which region and politics intersect. Religion is able to exert its political influence in many different ways. It can directly be involved in partisan activity. This is considering whether it may be supporting one side of partisan’s political race or even lobbying for a reform that is legitimate based on religious values. Many of the candidates in politics run for office through religious platforms while looking for religious groups support. For example, the Republican Party in most case follows this type of strategy. In the year 2004 presidential race, George W. Bush lost to John Kerry in what was based a religious victory. Although there is a costly and very controversial war happening overseas, the main focus of the election seems to be on religious and moral values for example on abortion and gay rights. The war happening in Iraq can be seen as a security issue instead of a moral value issue. The moral issues can be significant in mobilizing the evangelism and conservative rights of voting.

In the past, religion has been involved in policy debates and other not partisan issues, for example, racial equality and protests against the war in Vietnam and Iraq. The fact remains that religion is more likely to set forth a common value which is held by a certain group of people, this implies that it has a large influence through everyday decision and interactions. It is a socially identifying identity entity which explains the nature of the order of the world, why some of the things happen, and how people are associated with the protection of human rights and environment.

The separation of the state with the church plays a very significant role in domestic politics regarding science and education. The separation is also a major advance in human history and political theory. Religious leaders should not be given political power due to the fact they are a part of the religious hierarchy. Iran is a country which provides a good example of this on the latest of how theocracy corrupts religion and politics.

Rationality of politics

It is very essential to question the assumption, practical universal in works based on politics, that political theory, as well as politics, are rational. The rational choice theory of politics is based on the assumption that people choose a course of action which is in line with their personal preference. The rational choice theory in politics is used to model human decisions making, essentially in the context of economics where it helps the economist in understanding the main behavior of the society based on individual actions which are explained through their rationality. This choice, and especially in politics are made consistently due to the fact they fit personal preferences. This theory heavily applies to political science (Chong, 2013).

The rational choice theory is an essential element of game theory that provides a framework of analyzing individuals’ mutually interdependent interaction. Politics can, therefore, be defined as a preference over an outcome and it is a set of possible actions which are available to each person. The game theory represents a formal study of social institutions with set rules that relate the agent’s actions to the outcomes. This theory assumes that agents are a like-minded rational opponent who is very aware of each other’s preferences and strategies. In this case, politics can be considered as being rational.

References

Barnes, J., & Barron, R. (2018). Trump Policy in the Middle East: ISIS. Issue Brief, 1.

Black, I. (2018). Donald Trump and the Middle East. Political Insight, 9(1), 22-25.

Chong, D. (2013). Degrees of rationality in politics. In The Oxford handbook of political psychology.

Gentile, E. (2006). Politics as religion. Princeton University Press.