I have always been interested in US foreign policy decisions, especially when they center on a conflict that involves potential terrorist threats, which is why I am so intrigued by the current situation in Syria and Iraq. The topic I would like to research has a huge impact on me because, as a soldier in the National Guard, whether or not the US decides to send troops overseas clearly decides the path my life goes on at this point. Even if I was to not be sent in that situation, many friends I have made in the Army would likely be involved. My personal experience regarding the topic involves years of keeping up with current events in politics and watching documentaries on US involvement in conflicts overseas from credible sources like the National Geographic Channel. What qualifies me to discuss the research question is that I have other soldiers at my National Guard unit with useful military experience, as well as credible sources that I can use to examine the political perspective of the argument.

In his article from 2012, Nikolas Gvosdev wrote about the different dynamics of the situation in Syria. Gvosdev claimed that no matter what decision the United States made, it was going to be tough to come to because of all the possible ramifications behind each decision. Throughout Gvosdev's article he was concerned that the United States government could make the wrong decision in Syria and Iraq, although he did not specifically detail what the wrong decision would be. I could not find any bias in Gvosdev's article and it is credible because of the credentials that he has as an instructor at the US Naval War College. However, being that his article is nearly four years old, it is somewhat out of date because certain issues have been settled such as the nuclear dispute with Iran.

In "Policy Brief: Defeating ISIS, Rolling Back Iran" David Patten discusses what the United States' stance on the civil war in Syria should be. He also details a plan that he believes would accomplish the government's goals overseas in the most efficient way possible. Patten made three major points in his article which were that Iran is not our ally but we have a common enemy, Iraq is where we need to show the most support, and the Syrian moderate Islamists are likely our best and most reliable option for an ally. Patten may have a slight bias because of his background as an Iraq war veteran, however, he is credible because of his degree and that same Iraq war experience. 

The article written by Michael Gunter examines the current situation in Syria and Iraq. The article takes a look at all the sides involved such as the Islamic State, the United States, and the Turkish government to name a few. Gunter discusses the actions that took place in the past and the effect of those actions on the current crisis. The major interests that Gunter's article has are the different warring sides in Iraq and Syria, and which side the US would be best off to support. The author also details mistakes the government has already made, such as having peace talks and not inviting the Syrian Kurds or Iran. 

My research question is arguable because there is a constant, immense, and multifaceted argument over what the United States' approach should be in response to situations overseas. All of my sources agree that the dilemma our country is facing in the Middle East has many different aspects to analyze and is very complicated. What my sources disagree on is the direct approach that the country should take. While Gvosdev struggles to decide what would be best, Patton and Gunter clearly believe that actively supporting Iran is a mistake. The evidence that Patton and Gunter use to back their arguments skews my opinion in their favor. I see no need to change my research question because it fits the intended constraints of my paper.

