Conflicts and wars with terrorists somehow seem to always be in the news. Terrorist groups, such as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, always seem to be causing exactly what their name implies: terror. The terror of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria reaches billions of people worldwide, including the average, everyday citizens in the United States of America. Although the conflict with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS, hasn’t directly caused any terror on United States soil, nearly every American is affected in one way or another, whether it be directly or indirectly. Americans can be affected from things like the effect ISIS has on the United States stock market, or just on the daily lives of American citizens.
Although Egan gives some great points that really help to defend his point, he is also contradictory of himself in other points he makes. For example Egan states, “mere hours after President Obama laid out a strategy for defeating ISIS, crude oil fell below $91 a barrel to its lowest level since May 2013,” (Para 7). This point speaks more to the fact that people responded to reassurement from President Obama not that the conflict with ISIS isn’t too serious and all investors should not be worried. Based off his reasoning if ISIS were to perform some act of terror, whether it be on American soil or not, Egan makes it seem as if the United States stock market would respond poorly, which is a reasonable thing to believe. Later in his article Egan makes a statement that blatantly goes against the point he is trying to make by writing this article. Egan says, “the only corner of the financial world that has felt the ISIS effect is the bond market” (Para 11). The title of his article is “Why investors remain unfazed by ISIS,” not why some investors remain unfazed, or why most investors remain unfazed. By writing this sentence he already disproves his point that he had previously tried so hard to make. If the bond market is affected by the conflict with ISIS then the economy of America is also affected. If a person is trading stocks or trading bonds Egan has admitted that the conflict with ISIS does play a contributing factor. By writing this sentence he admits that there is some concern in the stock market due to the conflict with ISIS.
Apart from how the conflict with ISIS affects the stock market, which subsequently affects the American people, the American people are also affected by the high cost the conflict with ISIS is causing. Hasani Gittens, who wrote the article “Fight Against ISIS: How Much Will It Cost?” for NBC News, blatantly stated that “[the conflict with ISIS] could cost the government $100 million a week or more if airstrikes are extended into Syria” (Para 1). You cannot name a single American that would want their taxes to be increased to help pay a bill of over $100 million a week. Although no one wants to see the conflict with ISIS escalate, if it does, and the government is forced to dish out this large sum of each week to help pay for the conflict, all Americans will then be affected by the conflict with ISIS.
Even worse than costing American dollars, the conflict with ISIS could potentially cost American lives. Gittens writes that Obama said, “475 military personnel would be deployed to Iraq over the next week” (Para 3). Once ground troops are deployed the conflict will undoubtedly rise, directly affecting the friends and family of anyone who would be deployed as a ground troop. Gittens gives us the fact that for one year it costs $2.1 million, give or take, for every ground troop deployed (Para 6). Potentially the war could costs billions of dollars (Para 8). Another problem that also arises, which Bret Stephens points out in “THE MELTDOWN”, is that the United States is not as fiscally prominent as it used to be (3). Stephens makes a good point saying, “Limited budgetary resources require us to make ‘hard choices’ about the balance between international and domestic priorities” (3). The point that Stephens makes here is a great one. Limited resources, fiscally and otherwise, are very prevalent in today’s world and are not often discussed. Stephens does a great job of bringing it to light. With the tons of things that are at hand within the physical United States, such as the War on Poverty, its tougher to devote money and time to one conflict over another. The conflict with ISIS just stretches the fiscal flexibility of the United States even more thin than it already is.
The conflict with ISIS affects all four corners of the world and by no means is specifically harmful to only the United States, our stock market, and our citizens. But the conflict does nearly play a daily role in almost every American’s life. Whether you’re a friend or family member of someone who is or could potentially be a ground troop in the conflict, you have money invested, or are planning on investing money, in the stock market, or most likely you’re a taxpayer who most likely is helping to pay this enormous bill that the conflict with ISIS is causing.
Egan, Matt. “Why Investors Remain Unfazed by ISIS.” CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 11
Sept. 2014. Web. 08 Oct. 2014.
Gittens, Hasani. “Fight Against ISIS: How Much Will It Cost? – NBC News.”NBC News. NBC
News, 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 08 Oct. 2014.
Stephens, Bret. “THE MELTDOWN.” Commentary (2014): 19-26. Literary Reference Center.
Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=14&sid= 1022d1a0-11d9-406e-853c-21b0b5a12669%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4213&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=lfh&AN=97872178>.
Taub, Amanda. “Obama Says We’re Bombing ISIS to Protect Civilians. Bullshit.” Vox. Vox
Media, Inc., 07 Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.
Waslander, Simon. “Oil: Limited Upside and Vulnerable to a Downside Correction.” Foresight
Investor. Foresight International B.V., 19 June 2014. Web. 17 Oct. 2014.