In his speech last night President Obama declared the beginning of a new war in the Middle East. This war is to differ from previous anti-terrorist efforts as it is primarily an aerial fight. The plan is to continually use airstrikes in Iraq, and for the first time in Syria as well, with only a few hundred American service members on the ground in non-combat roles. The question is, why now? Iraq and Syria have been in turmoil for months. The answer is the death of two Americans at the hands of ISIS.
ISIS has existed for years, originally an offshoot of al-Qaida operating in Syria, acting as a major force in the Syrian crisis. However, recently their influence has skyrocketed. They have exploded out of Syria and into Iraq, capturing huge swathes of territory. Terrorist organizations have acted like this before, if not as quickly and successfully. So, what was the event that convinced Obama to send his birds to bomb the heck out of the region? The death of two Americans, executed on tape by ISIS. Not only does this trigger the typical American "screw us, screw you" response, but for the first time since Bin Laden caught a bullet with his face, Americans have a clear villain. Before, the region was a mess of a bunch of different terrorist groups. Now, there is a clear evil for Americans to root against. So, the answer to the question of why now is that the American people need a real villain and the death of American citizens before they can get motivated to go to war, even a limited aerial war such as Obama's new war.
I agree that sending our troops into combat is always a twisted idea, but at this point it is necessary. The U.S. is often accused of trying to police the whole world, however when they wait for direct acts against themselves, they are attacked for being selfish. I think that under the circumstances, the plan presented provides the best chances of success with direct ground combat involving US troops.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Last night when I was watching the speech it seemed that Obama always talked about aerial strikes and how ground troops would not be used in combat. But ended up asking myself, "What if the aerial strikes don't work?" Will we end up sending troops anyway? It seemed like Obama was avoiding the "What if.." questions so then if he has to take action later its not like he gave us his word or anything. Obama has gotten us out of so many war situations and now it seems like "Why now?" Why the sudden need to act now?
ReplyDeleteThis was very insightful, and I agree that this is definitely invoking a "screw us screw you" kind of mindset, as things like this often do. However, I also think that at this point there are very limited options, and with everything going on, something has to be done. Though it does pose a question of whether or not this is the best of our options at this point.
ReplyDelete