Readers Debate: ISIS Crisis or "Here We Go Again" - Different Perspectives from Two Long-time Activists - Seymour Joseph and James E. Vann
by Seymour Joseph
September 15, 2014
We are living in strange times. I don1t remember a period when the left and the right formed a phalanx of assault on a president, in this case President Obama in relation to the ISIS crisis - the left that he is too aggressive, the right that he is too weak. The word "unconstitutional" is even being hurled at this former constitutional law professor.
Ironically, there may be some merit to that accusation. After all, we're getting militarily muddier and muddier in our attacks on ISIS, and that kind of mud is supposedly the domain of Congress.
And yet, as I said, these are strange times. When our founding fathers put the power to declare war in the hands of Congress, that precept was clearly in the context of nation against nation. Today, with international entanglements being what they are, I believe that war between nations ended with World War II. And yet the killing worldwide has never ceased: Our "police action" in Vietnam, civil, tribal and religious wars, terrorist acts, forever epitomized by 9/11. This is the world in which we live, and the world in which we must contend.
This does not mean that the new world disorder gives our president the authority to disregard our constitutional mandates. It means that those mandates must be viewed in a new context. No one questions the right to self-defense. It was in that context that we went after Osama bin Laden after 9/11. But that legitimate reaction became the pretext for the Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld team to commit the grossly unconstitutional war crime of invading Iraq and thereby set the stage for the Middle East quagmire in which we find ourselves in today.
We can argue all we want about the nefarious role the U.S. has played in the Middle East since the end of World War II - and we're certainly paying the price for it, starting with the basement bombing of the World Trade Center in 1983. But does that mean our mea culpa should prompt us to disengage? No. Is ISIS a brutal terrorist outfit that perverts Islamic teaching? Yes. Was it correct for the U.S. to come to the humanitarian and military aid of the Yazidis fleeing from ISIS terror? Yes. Is ISIS ultimately a threat to the United States? Yes. Keep in mind that when we speak of the U.S. we're not just talking about the mainland, we're referring to Americans abroad - such as James Foley and Steven Sotloff. As for the mainland, there's the frightening prospect of the Americans who have joined ISIS and can return home to commit heaven knows what acts of horror.
The question for us is how to engage this threat, not whether we should.
I believe that President Obama is taking the correct approach: promising no "boots on the ground," insisting that only Iraqis and Syrians can ultimately destroy ISIS, and gathering a coalition of nations in the effort - including Turkey, which is key.
I don1t mean this to sound as though there aren't problems with this strategy - and, yes, it is a strategy. We can't be certain, for instance, that events won't draw us further into this quagmire than Obama's strategy intends. It's troublesome, for example, that he has already ordered more "boots" to Iraq, ostensibly to aid intelligence, training, etc. To what extent other nations are willing to participate in the coalition against ISIS is not yet clear; and we don1t know how, if at all, Congress will weigh in. I believe it's essential that they do, whether before or after the midterm elections, although how they will approach the issue is unsettling, considering that the Republicans, especially in the House, would do anything they could to undermine Obama, even to the detriment of the country.
The stickiest question of all is Syria. Finding ourselves, in effect, in alliance with Assad against ISIS is a conundrum wrapped in an enigma.
All in all, President Obama is taking an undeserved beating. He's accused of doing too much or not enough. We should view his strategy in the context of the Middle East mess handed to him, which has grown messier through no fault of his own, and the unprecedented congressional opposition he has faced from the first day he took office. And the media punditry hasn't been so kind to him either.
No president, or any elected official, deserves unequivocal support. The nature of politics is too complex for any individual to always do the right thing. But criticism must have a context. The context for evaluating Obama's approach to ISIS is, one, ISIS is a serious threat to the region and beyond - and is a perversion of Islam; two, Obama's efforts to gain material international support in combating ISIS; three, his correct stance that only Iraqis and Syrians can ultimately demolish ISIS; and, four, most important, his repeated desire not to send an American fighting force back into that region.
No, this man is not different than the one we elected in 2008, but the world is. We should take that into consideration before we pick up that brickbat.
by James E. Vann
September 15, 2014
As often voiced by my second least-regarded US president: "Here We Go Again"
In the next few weeks, President Obama will launch his own "shock and awe" bombing war against Syria - a former ally that has neither harmed or threatened the US in any way. Curiously, the pending military barrage is a carbon copy of the one Obama vociferously criticized when carried out by Bush-Cheney against Iraq. For the last two months, the media (with exception of the NYT, which strongly criticized the announcement) Potomac pundits, and tv talking heads have been beating the drums of war, whipping the US populace into a frenzy where 53% now support US strikes against they have no idea who or why. Thus, it can only be concluded that Obama -- who in addition to having a hawkish-lite demeanor -- was pressured into a war he knows is wrong.
Just last week, almost invisibly in mass media, the US Intelligence Command issued its consolidated report and conclusion that ISSI poses "no military threat to the US." None of the weekend InfoNew shows gave a hint to this important revelation. Sure, ISSI as an organization has committed unspeakable atrocities. The issue, however, is not atrocities. Even admitting ISIS ferocity, what has occurred to date would not light a candle to what the US has done and is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Vietnam, Haiti, Panama, Grenada . the list of illegal wars goes on and on. What ISIS has clearly stated is not that US territory is a target of ISIS invasion, but that "The US Must Get Out Of The Middle East" - and it should !
Regardless the proclamation of "no US troops on the ground," all wars suffer the common trait of "mission creep." There will be US troops, mounting troop casualties, and massacres of thousands of innocents, women, and children. While other western countries have been shamed by Obama and Kerry into supporting the US bombing war, none have committed a single soldier to the illegal US created assault. Obama may attempt to resist exposing US soldiers to harm in a ground war, but in 2016 Obama is history, leaving the prosecution of his war to "superhawks," a characteristic that is common to all known and potential pretenders to the presidency.
ISIS, and perennial inter-tribal, inter-religious conflicts throughout the Middle East are Arab-Islamic matters, matters that should and ultimately will be resolved within the Arab-Islamic universe. The US and its coterie of western lap-dog countries are totally out of place in the Middle East; do not know the languages; are ignorant of the cultures, and have no respect or affection for the peoples. No US interests are threatened and none are at risk. The only legitimate role for the US and its lap-dogs in the Middle East is "OUT NOW !"