The debate of how much interaction the U.S. should have in the Middle East is one that has been going on for many years prior to this point and it will probably be one that continues to go on for a long time into the future.  The sides of the debate are also not exactly synonymous with one specific side of the political playing field either.  Meaning that people, whether they affiliate themselves with any particular party or not, all tend to want something different as far as the United States participation in the Middle East.  No political party has members that all completely agree with each other on the subject, because it is not a party decision but more a personal decision on what the individual thinks is best or right.  Party majorities may sway one way or the other depending on current events but there is no set view saying that such and such party members always view the Middle East in such and such way because that is just the way people of that party by default have to feel about the subject.  Something else that contributes to the truth that every person has different views and thoughts on the Middle East, is that as the Presidency changes hands from one person to the next, foreign policy in the Middle East continues to change.  For example, during the time that Obama was in office, his foreign policy involved trying to keep the United States from having too much involvement in the Middle East in order to try and prevent as much conflict as possible (Krieg).  Currently, Trump seems to be furthering the United States into war and involvement in the Middle East, which is the complete opposite of what Obama tried to do during his time.  This fact contributes to the idea that there has been no point in history that everyone in the United States has been happy with the efforts and events that have taken place regarding the United States and Middle East as a whole.  This mixture of opinions and feelings on the subject is the cause of so much strife and disagreement as far as politically and militarily regarding the Middle East and the United States.  With there not seeming to be any point in the near future looking like everyone will agree on the subject, it is important to be informed and up to date so that people can form their own personal opinions and ideas on the subject without just hearing someone else talk about what is going on and simply going with that idea.  Regardless of the way the rest of the country may feel on the subject, the current leader of the U.S. seems to have his mind set on increasing the country’s involvement in the Middle East: “Yet Trump's most important escalation has been in the War on Terror, substantially increasing the U.S. commitment to wars in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere” (Ashford).  Having said that, the United States needs to reduce military intervention and participation in the Middle East in order to save the U.S. a large amount money, to reduce civilian casualties in the Middle East, and to make the U.S. look better than it currently does to some outside parties in order to secure a good position with them for current and possible future necessities.  

It is a commonly known fact in the United States that the country itself is currently in debt by several trillion dollars.  That debt is a mixture of owing other countries money and of the United States technically owing itself money.  The United States owes itself money because it keeps borrowing money from citizens of itself and from companies that reside in the U.S in order to pay other debts, such as debts owed to foreign countries and powers.  It is also a commonly known fact that reducing military spending and efforts could save the country some money in the long run, but what is not so well-known about the whole situation is the estimated amount of money that could be saved in reducing military efforts in the Middle East alone.  According to a couple of experts on the topic, “If dropping the Persian Gulf oil missions led to a shift to a one-war or a one-and-a-half-war strategy, the United States could…save as much as $75 billion per year” (Glaser and Kelanic 167), this number does not even include reducing all military efforts in the Middle East as a whole and it still projects a savings of about $75 billion dollars.  With that in mind, it is hard to even think about the amount of possible savings the country could have if this idea was put to a larger scale, the United States could potentially save a couple trillion dollars by bringing some troops and supplies home and cutting back on military efforts as a whole.  There is potential for a complete new game plan here if the United States government puts their trust into this system and tries to implement it to the best of their ability.  The argument does not want to completely abandon the Middle East and just hope for the best, but rather to simply slow down and cut back on what exactly the U.S. does in the Middle East, as far as militarily anyway.  With this reduction of battle and spending strategy, the goal would be that the United States is able to still have enough control in the Middle East so that counter-terrorism can take place but also to cut back enough so that the country can save some money because it cannot really afford to go further into debt at this point.    

Civilian casualties have always been a part of war, it is a known cost that is unavoidable in that it is something that is impossible to completely prevent.  But, it is also something that could be limited if the people in charge of military action make decisions that would productively reduce that number.  Unfortunately for innocent bystanders in the Middle East that are surrounded by war between radical forces and the United States, this is exactly the opposite of what has happened in the past several months.  According to a couple of writers that are a part of the New York Times, up to the point of March 29, the United States had launched 49 airstrikes just that month in Yemen which is more airstrikes than the United States had ever had in a total year of its history on record.  This huge increase of military action in the Middle East under Trump’s leadership has caused a spike in the amount of deaths of Muslim civilians in the Middle East (Gordon and Hubbard).  This reckless behavior that has caused the civilian death toll in the Middle East to drastically increase is unacceptable.  The only way to be sure that these deaths that are being caused by our military decrease is to actually cut back on military action and interference by the United States in the Middle East.  The United States cannot continue to kill bystanders and claim that they are only there to help.  Now as stated before, the U.S. cannot completely abandon the Middle East and just hope that everything goes well for the people there because that would just end in disaster for both the civilians in danger in the region and for the United States.  Unlike this writer at the Boston Globe, I do not at all advise that the U.S completely leave the Middle East: “It’s time to end US military engagements in the Middle East. Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings — the whole nine yards” (Sachs).  The region and all of the countries in the region would end up under the control of terrorists or at the least just people that have no regard for the well-being of others and the United States.  Meaning that the United States would be cut off from crude oil and other necessary resources and the innocent bystanders of the Middle East would be enslaved, abused, killed, or a mixture of the three.  So, if abandoning the area is not a possible solution then the only reasonable course of action would be to simply reduce military action in the Middle East so that the lives of civilians will not be taken by the hands of the U.S. military.  

In order for the United States to obtain a secure stance in the eyes of other countries, the country needs to reduce military action and intervention in the Middle East.  Specifically, leaders around the Middle East whose countries the United States may not be specifically acting in as far as militarily, may find the current U.S. use of military action unnecessary.  It is not common to see movies and read books that contain scenes of citizens in the Middle East asking the U.S. military members to leave.  They ask these soldiers to do so because they believe that their lives are more endangered with the troops being there and that without them they are in fact better off.  Well, these movie and book moments are not simple fiction, in fact it is not a strange occurrence for the members of these areas to want nothing to do with the United States military in real life.  If this is true, then it is reasonable to believe that current leaders around and throughout the Middle East may tend to feel the same way about the situation as the normal citizens.  With this being said, why would these leaders and their countries ever feel like they can trust us enough to help us with future problems if the way the U.S. treats the Middle East is just like one big war zone that does not take into consideration the wishes of the people of the Middle East itself?  The Middle East contains many valuable resources with crude oil being at the forefront of importance out of all these resources.  If the U.S. does something in the Middle East angers people in control of that oil such as cause more war and violence with the recent increase in militaristic action in the Middle East then the United States economy may suffer dire consequences because as of this moment, the U.S. cannot afford to be cut off from oil supplies due to its huge reliance on it as a fuel for vehicles and machinery.  Unfortunately, the United States seems to be raising that same risk with every passing moment: “In just five months, President Trump has moved U.S. troops closer to the front lines in complex fights in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Somalia” (Katulis and Podesta).  If the United States wants to be able to ensure support from major players in the Middle East, a reduction in military activity from what is currently going on must happen.  Whether it is military support in emergency situations or even simply the support by selling the U.S. oil due to its monstrous need for it, the United Sates simply cannot deny the fact that it is partially in the hands of major Middle Eastern leaders.  The last thing the country needs right now is to anger someone in a high place that can really hurt the American way of life.  

A reasonable point that may get brought up while discussing this argument is that there are so many attacks on United States embassies every year in the Middle East and that something should be done to stop it, in other words this idea is looking for more military engagement.  Although there is a reasonable basis for argument in this area, the idea that a reduction in U.S. military action in the Middle East would be most beneficial for both parties involved is still very much true.  A study that took place around the globe found that a large portion of attacks on military embassies in the world happen in the Middle East (Zoet).  While it is understandable to see the side of the people that say in order to stop these attacks a larger military presence should be held in the Middle East by the U.S., that argument is not correct because If a lesser military presence from the United States was in the Middle East then the attackers of the embassies would have less of a reason to attack.  Often times the real reason that terrorists and outside forces attack and threaten United States embassies is because they want the U.S. to either stop with the military interference or for the United States to get out of their area/country altogether.  Regardless of which one of these is the ultimate goal of the attackers, at least a reduction of a United States military presence would be a step in the direction of what they are trying to accomplish with the violence.  Which would be a good thing because the attackers would see that their point has been made and that something has been done to ease tensions in the area.  If the U.S. decided to send even more troops over in order to try and control the attacks and stop them altogether then that would sadly only result in more violence and more and more lives being sacrificed for something that could have been controlled earlier on by reeling back the troops a little bit.  Now technically the United States claims that it does not negotiate or do business with terrorists, but this would not exactly fall in either one of those categories.  The objective in cutting back on military action in the Middle East would be to save lives and zero communication with the terrorists would have to take place, therefore there would be no negotiation, just a smart move by the leaders of the American government.  

The debate over whether decreasing or increasing the United States military in the Middle East is the best strategy to go with is one that may in fact never end because of the continuous problems of some sort or another in that region unless something drastically changes.  But, that is a good thing because even though there will never be agreement on the subject from everyone involved, new ideas and plans may come out of continued debate on the subject and that could make a world of difference in times to come.  Without an obvious choice, there will always be debates on what decision is the best.  Some people will continue to believe that the United States should get out, while others say the United States must in fact stay for some reason or another, such as this World Affairs writer: “How gratifying it would be just to walk away, dust off our hands, and say you’re on your own.  But we can’t” (Totten).  Even if the debate changes to a different area other than the Middle East, this same discussion will continue to take place with no idea having the support of the entire country behind it.  Until that shift in location or any other large change occurs, the clearest and best option that the United States has to go with right now is that of reducing military intervention and action in the Middle East for monetary and humanitarian purposes, as well as in order to help protect the future of the United States itself.  Without a major change from the current military path in the Middle East, the United States may be putting itself on a path that leads to more and more war in the bottomless pit that is the Middle East.
