ISIS goes by many names. It claims a caliphate in swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria. Whatever you call it, it presents a huge problem. In my research paper, I will discuss the issue of how the United States government should respond to ISIS. I would like to explore in detail the type of political and military actions that the US government can make against ISIS to eliminate it as a threat, as well as to make sure it does not return in some other form. I will limit this exigence by only exploring military and political actions by the United States, not by any other Western countries or any other group. It will also only be a secular argument involving politics and military, not involving religious action against ISIS.
Even though the US has been fighting (debatable) ISIS through airstrikes for some time, there are still questions amongst the public on how to truly defeat this enemy, or if we even should fight in the first place. A controversy in the public remains over the failure of the United States to restructure Iraq. In his Wall Street Journal article, Aaron Miller says President Obama is searching for a middle ground, between sending in troops and restructuring like Bush after 9/11 and doing nothing. Mr. Miller also argues that “ISIS is largely an outgrowth of no governance or bad governance.” In a New York Times editorial, the NY Times Editorial Board argues that Muslim countries have to team up to fight ISIS. They write, “[S]uch extremists will never be defeated if Muslims themselves don’t make it a priority” So, all these arguments from both these newspapers point to the debates over how Obama should handle ISIS in light of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, whether the weak governance in Iraq was a cause for ISIS, and how other countries, specifically Muslim countries, should play a role in the US fight against ISIS. What is at stake in all these debates is the sovereignty and autonomy of certain Muslim countries, since the argument could be made the lack of authority in Iraq and Syria allowed for this problem; a possible change in US foreign policy and how the US is viewed on the world stage; and the relationships between the US and other Muslim countries if we ask them to have a zero tolerance against any extremist actions in their country.
There is more at stake in this overall issue too, beyond just those few debates. Because after concluding those debates and discussing the whole issue of the rhetorical situation, an answer from the United States will affect different groups regardless. It’s hard to say who would benefit from the answer to this issue by the US government. But, the fact that this conversation is happening means that it is more likely for action to be taken, therefore benefiting the victims of ISIS whose safety requires intervention of some sort. It’s difficult to describe who does not benefit from this exigence. ISIS would not benefit over a discussion about how to destroy them, they would be affected negatively. Countries without a hand in this game of geopolitical poker would also not be affected, countries who do not struggle with Islamist extremism and are not involved in the Middle East. The list of those countries would be short. Those who have potential to be persuaded over this issue are American federal government officials in the Executive and Legislative branch about what policies and laws to enact to fix the issue. American citizens can also be persuaded over which policy to support as a citizen and which politicians to support based on their official policy over ISIS. Lastly, there is a large group left out of persuasion in this discussion. The Middle East itself and any country to possibly join a coalition against ISIS are not being persuaded, as relevant as they might be. This is only about what the US should do with and in these countries, not about what each country should do individually.
Works Cited
The Editorial Board. "A Necessary Response to ISIS." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Aug. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.
Miller, Aaron. "Obama’s Search for an ISIS Strategy Neither Too Hot Nor Too Cold." WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
