Ground Troops Vs. the Islamic State, and More from CRS
In response to calls for increased deployment of ground forces against the Islamic State, the Congressional Research Service stated this week that “There are no clear-cut answers to determining the suitability, size, and mission profile of the ground elements of any military campaign; determining the disposition of military forces is in many ways as much an art as it is a science.”
“As it evaluates proposals to introduce more ground forces [to combat the Islamic State], Congress may therefore ponder five questions.” See Additional U.S. Ground Troops to Counter the Islamic State? Five Questions, CRS Insight, February 17, 2016.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service issued this week include the following.
IAEA Budget and U.S. Contributions: In Brief, February 17, 2016
U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy, updated February 17, 2016
Border Security Metrics Between Ports of Entry, February 16, 2016
Deficits and Debt: Economic Effects and Other Issues, February 17, 2016
Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs, updated February 17, 2016
U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2016, February 16, 2016
The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, February 16, 2016
Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated February 17, 2016
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.