He was elected, at least partially, on the promise that he would end the war in Iraq. He was re-elected, at least partially, because he did end the war in Iraq. And now that he doesn't have to worry about being elected or re-elected, President Obama wants to rekindle the war in Iraq. So what does this all mean?
First off, let's take a good look at the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and what they've been up to in the past couple of weeks. This is hardly the first time I'm discussing them here. We have to talk about the brutal execution of a Jordanian Air Force pilot at the group's hands, of course - the man was burned alive. Part of what's interesting about this is how unconcerned ISIS is about making allies in the Muslim world. The Jordanian hostage, Moath al-Kasasbeh, was a devout Muslim, and his nation launched a staunch wave of retaliatory attacks against the Islamic State. Last week, when 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians were beheaded in Libya by an affiliate of ISIS's, Egypt launched airstrikes of its own. ISIS has no allies - not even Al Qaeda will affiliate itself with the group. ISIS is officially the Westboro Baptist Church of the world. ISIS has also claimed that Arizona native Kayla Mueller was killed in one of the Jordanian airstrikes. And we're supposed to believe that? Top officials in Jordan's Air Force asserted that no strikes were made at the location in question when Kayla was killed, which only serves to reinforce the theory that ISIS killed her in cold blood, as they have so many westerners (and easterners, at this point - let's not forget the Japanese hostages).
So, to recap, ISIS has threatened the United States, most of western Europe (including France, Germany and the UK), Russia, Japan, Australia, and much of the Islamic World. And all the while, they've been bragging about their barbaric exploits and publicizing their actions for all the world to see. The Nazis did their utmost to hide the extent of their atrocities, as did Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and many others. Not even Al Qaeda and the Taliban publicize their actions - it took three years for Bin Laden to admit to the 9/11 attacks. ISIS is running rampant, calling the world's bluff. Which is why I think Obama's plan to wage a ground war is long overdue. I'm not a war hawk, so hear me out: ISIS has no armored infantry. Its air capabilities extremely limited. The videos they post bragging about the capabilities of their "soldiers" on the battlefield show individuals who are downright pathetic next to US marines. Not even Special Forces or Navy SEALs - regular old US marines. ISIS has attacked American bases and gotten very close to others, practically daring our forces to attack. I think we should go with Obama's suggestion and engage. He uses flowery language to make it sound like he isn't calling for a ground war, but we all know that he is. And why is that a problem? Our troops are better-trained, better-equipped, and better-supplied, not to mention that we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors ready for combat. The M1 Abrams can shred any ISIS vehicle to pieces with a single round. And this isn't anything like Iraq '03. This is more like Iraq '91. We're facing an enemy who has given us plenty of cause to go to war. That enemy has provoked much of the international community, including much of the Islamic world. We could assemble a broad coalition to sweep through the infected areas and cut out the cancer that is the Islamic State in a matter of months - in theory, at least. Perhaps best of all, Obama's plan doesn't call for any long-term engagements in the region. And the odds that he would abuse this power are fairly low. Much stranger things have happened, but I don't think Obama would go back on his word here.
But, as I said at the beginning of this segment, this would be a huge change in policy for Obama. He structured both his campaigns on two major promises: relief for the lower and middle classes, and extraction from foreign conflicts. He achieved both of these with varying degrees of success, depending on how you look at the big picture (and, of course, who you're asking). Obama ended the war in Iraq back in 2011 and plans to remove the vast majority of American military personnel stationed in Afghanistan by the end of this year. He didn't get the military involved in the Syrian conflict, and he didn't escalate any of the numerous situations involving North Korea. Now, Obama stands poised to send our country back to Iraq in a move I believe will mirror the Gulf War - which is part of the reason why I'm in favor of it. Right now, America simply can't afford a drawn-out war. And ISIS is just as bad as Saddam Hussein was - brutal slaughter of innocent civilians, attempted genocide, and so on and so forth. You could argue, as I would, that they're even worse. But in spite of this all, the irony is still very much in evidence. Seven years ago, if you'd told me that Barack Obama was going to reignite the war in Iraq, I probably would have laughed at you. Actually, since I was in the fifth grade at the time, I probably would have been rather confused...but the point still stands. Obama sent his war plan to Congress, which is a new twist - if Congress actually declares war on ISIS, it will be the first time since World War Two when it has done so. If Congress authorizes Obama's plan, it will be the first time since...well, since Iraq '03. Technically, Obama has the authority to carry out the strikes as he underlines them in his plan. He's probably only asking Congress for authorization so nobody can claim he's a warmonger who went back on his promise for no reason. People will claim that, of course, but they won't have any legitimate argument. In all honesty, I believe (at least, I hope) that this is something the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and the Senate will be able to get behind and support. Because if history has taught us anything, it's that nothing unites Americans like a quick, successful war. Isn't that comforting?
No comments:
Post a Comment