(Source: US Navy)
Media centers everywhere are chock-full of the latest news regarding the Syrian conflict: on Monday, the U.S. led airstrikes on ISIS targets. Apparently, the U.S. warned Syria in advance not to interfere with the American aircraft, a warning which it promptly heeded. According to Army Lt. Gen. Williams C. Mayville Jr., director of operations for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, these airstrikes are the beginning of a prolonged campaign to put a stop to the actions of ISIS. The goal of this campaign, as described by Mayville, is "'to degrade and ultimately destroy' the Islamic State, first by directly attacking the group in both countries, severing its supply lines and disrupting its sources of arms and money".
The U.S. will also be employing the use of proxy forces in order to further hurt ISIS and succeed over the long term, forces such as the Iraqi military and moderate Syrian rebels. By themselves, these groups have failed to make an impact, but combined and with U.S. military backing they will stand a chance of gaining some territory.
However, there are some definite issues with this method of "dealing with" ISIS. Ross Douthat made a good point when he pointed out that an escalation of aggressive campaigning in Syria could (1) prompt Islamic extremist groups to unite against the U.S. and become even more hostile, and (2) alienate civilians against the U.S. as more of them are injured as innocent bystanders by the airstrikes. It's exactly like he says: "Things could always get worse, and we should never forget it."
Here are some questions:
1) What is the right kind of American response to ISIS's actions? Must we have a response? Why?
2) Do you think that the bombing will work?
3) What are some past examples of times when we should've heeded the Founding Fathers' warnings against entangling alliances?
3 comments:
Sadly, I don't think there is a US response that is the “right response” to the ISIS crisis. In my opinion, it will take international intervention to combat this group, not just US support. What this does is two things. It decreases the view that extremists hold that the US is the enemy and that they need to be attacked through terror (because we wouldn't be the only “invaders”), and it will solidify the fact that this is a worldwide crisis, not just a US interest.
The difficult thing about this situation is that diplomacy is almost out of the question, and dropping bombs on innocent civilians doesn't work too well, either. A third, and my least favorite idea, would be put boots on the ground. I personally dislike this last option because it puts American soldiers’ lives at stake, which completely unfair. This decision is so cruel because ISIS poses an issue to the international community; there should be more than just American (and local) warriors risking their lives to stop this extremist group.
I agree with Andros that the ISIS crisis should be a global issue, not just America being the "world police". Other nations, as well as the UN, should become more involved. I also agree that finding a "right response" might indeed be impossible. It would be nice if the US could improve their perception in the Middle East and some how stop extremist groups from gaining power. That way innocent civilians would not have to die from air-strikes and other weapons meant for ISIS. Also, there would be no need for American troops to get involved. How one would do that is anyone's guess. Air-strikes, drones, and other attacks that tend to kill both terrorists and civilians bother me, because its hard to support methods designed to kill terrorists, when they kill innocent people as well. Sometimes the needs of the many out way the needs of the few, but you have to wonder where and when you can draw the line on the amount of peacefully bystanders who are killed.
In my opinion, there is no correct response to the atrocities committed by ISIS. Ultimately, the goal of ISIS is to draw the U.S. into another 2001 Iraq War style conflict that will cost the U.S. billions if not trillions of dollars and will result in many civilian and military casualties. At this point, airstrikes seem to be the most viable option.
I'm not exactly sure how well bombing will work, only time will tell. I can, however, say that there will be many civilian casualties if the airstrikes drag on. As seen in the Israel-Palestine conflict, civilian casualties in Gaza caused an increased number of people to join Hamas. I wonder if the same will happen with this conflict
Post a Comment