With ISIS becoming a growing threat and potential global destabilizing force, should The U.S. take a leadership role, as part of a large international effort, to defeat it?
—
In recent months international events–including the increasing power, brutality and rise of ISIS (Islamic State Iraq and Syria) in Iraq and Syria, as well as the video of the recent killings of American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley–have been getting substantial media coverage. In addition, a new NBC News/Wall Street poll found that Americans increasingly believe the U.S. should be more active in world affairs.
According to the NBC/WSJ poll, 40 percent want the U.S. to be less active in international affairs (down from 47% in April); 27 percent want to be more active (up from 19% in April); and 29 percent want to stay at current level (down from 30% in April). This change is primarily from Republicans who would like more activity in world affairs by a 41 percent-to-34 percent margin. By contrast, only 15 percent of Democrats favor more engagement.
President Obama plans to outline his ISIS strategy–to take on and deal with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria–in his address to the nation from the Senate floor 9 p.m. Wednesday, September 10, 2014. The president indicated on “Meet The Press” Sunday, that U.S. troops will not be deployed but has authorized additional 350 troops to Iraq at the request of the U.S. Department of State “the request approved today will allow some previously deployed military personnel to depart Iraq, while at the same time provide a more robust, sustainable security force for our personnel and facilities in Baghdad.” (According to a statement released by the White House).
House Speaker John Boehner said that the militants pose a serious threat that must be dealt with in Iraq, Syria or wherever they exist, but that congress will not make any decision on a vote until the President lays out his plan. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, indicated that the President “needs to present this plan to the Congress and the American People, and where the president believes he lacks authority to execute such a strategy, he needs to explain to the Congress how additional authority for the use of force will protect America…The threat from ISIL is real and it’s growing. It’s time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response.” (7online/news)
Putting aside, for the moment, the pathetic lack of any leadership from the GOP Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader respectively, it remains to be seen if the House and Senate will support, authorize and fund the forthcoming plan of the President–and work with the administration and the international coalition it is building–to address the ISIS threat.
The threat of ISIS is real and danger looms large for the Middle East, Arab World, Europe, U.S (probably in the form of lone wolf attacks) and the rest of the world. A large international effort by a coalition of nations is required (inclusive of people and treasure) for this political, military and diplomatic effort.
Should the U.S lead and coordinate an international effort to defeat the ISIS threat and if so, should “boots of the ground,” in addition to air strikes and arms, be an option?
What do you think?
Photo: The U.S. Army /Flicker
And we won’t evolve if we are using the same solutions we have for the last century. It’s the same “Gunboat Diplomacy” mentality. I would suggest checking out Americans For A Free Republic at http://www.afr.org for some alternatives. I never advocated withdrawing from the world completely. If America is going to lead it should be by example. Bill Clinton made the same mistake in Somalia that Bush and Obama are making in the Middle East: assuming that Muslims will embrace Jeffersonian democracy when there is nothing in their culture or history to indicate they will ever do so.
No saying the system and every policy decision is perfect. Nothing is. It is also not only about oil although oil is still a huge issue for us until we wean ourselves from it in years to come, hopefully. Even if some money ends up in terrorists groups there are ways to minimize it and it must prevent us from doing what we need to do overseas to protect our American interests. This economy and country must work harder to be more energy self sufficient but we are still part of a global economy and everything is connected. Most of… Read more »
If you are worried about oil interests, I would suggest reading Energy Victory by Robert Zubrin. He is an aerospace engineer who has a plan for ending our dependence on the Middle East. The Saudis were not our friends during the oil embargo of the 70s, not to mention that 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. do you really think the money we send over there does not go to terrorist groups?
I think it is a question of degree and type of involvement. The Constitutional Republic argument is a red herring cause it has nothing to do with the reality of planet earth 2014 and beyond. Regardless of form of government, engagement in the world and being a leader is in the best interests of this Republic. 911 happened for a variety of complex reasons, many of which would go away as and when the world community works better together, which is part of what the UN is supposed to do and why it is important. Cooperation and mutual aid, cultural… Read more »
It is not about disengaging, just using our military for the purpose it was intended: to defend America. Not to do peacekeeping or meals on wheels missions for the UN, which has no basis to even exist on American soil. We can still engage in trade and travel. Protecting ships against piracy is a legitimate use of the Navy. The “isolationist” argument is just a strawman. We were supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, not cop and social worker to the world. 9-11 happened even though we supported Bin Laden and the Afghan resistance in the 80s.
The world is a lot smaller than you think. We need to act in our best interests ans cannot ignore critical world events because they have a direct impact on us. We are also addicted to our standard of living and access to resources and world markets for our prosperity and that is all a part of it. The course we take should be as part of a large international effort to address a common threat and should avoid involvement of soldiers if at all possible. Congress should be involved in authorizing that course of action. What is clear is… Read more »
This is more of the same nonsense that has cost American lives for over a century. Politicians ignored the advice of the Founders about avoiding foreign entanglements. Then they got this country in bed with thugs and terrorists like the Shah, Bin Laden, Saddam, Manuel Noriega and who knows how many more. Then when things go bad their only solution is to send more Americans overseas to get shot at cleaning up the messes they created in the first place. I don’t care about Syria. Or Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Colombia or any of the other Socialist welfare countries we have… Read more »