The Administration has authorized airstrikes against the ISIS militants in an attempt to help the region, but remain neutral, but is that really neutral?
It has become all but obvious in the past few years that the Obama Administration feels that America has been the target of extreme terrorist organizations as a direct result of our “occupation” of areas throughout the world and the middle east especially. President Obama himself has made reference to this in numerous speeches and has essentially established his mindset that when we, as a nation, send “boots on the ground” to an area to help out militarily in situations such as the current ISIS movement, we are inviting repercussions by the terrorist organizations. He feels, it appears, that the United States should not provide troops because it incites hatred by these groups and will lead to retaliation, even possibly on our own ground.
However, at the same time the Obama Administration has been authorizing large numbers of drone strikes and has now even authorized airstrikes against ISIS. The latest news reports are saying that a head member of ISIS may have been killed in the recent drone strike on that area, but it is not yet confirmed. In the meantime, another video has surfaced of the beheading of another U.S. journalist, this time Steven Sotloff. The man doing the beheading reportedly says in the video, “I’m back, Obama, and I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State, because of your insistence on continuing your bombings … and on Mosul Dam, despite our serious warnings,” the executioner said, according to the transcript. “You, Obama, have but to gain from your actions but another American citizen. So just as your missiles continue to strike out people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people.”
My question to you the reader is: Are we really remaining neutral by authorizing airstrikes and drone strikes?
I am not suggesting that we should be doing nothing. I am not even saying that boots on the ground is a better or worse idea than airstrikes and drone strikes. However, is it? Think about the logic here: we do not want the terrorist to think America is intruding on their lands and their “jihad”. We want them to believe that America is willing to let other nations live their way (or in these cases, kill their way) without America acting as the “World Police” and forcing the “western ways” into other regions. But do we really think that they are going to sit back and “forgive” these airstrikes and drone strikes against their militants?
Is it really better if we strike them without combat in their eyes? Or is this whole policy flawed? Is it politics governing policy? If you ask me, you are either in or you are out. You can’t expect an extreme, hate-filled militant organization like ISIS to say, “Well, now that we have taken over the middle east and we run things now, good ol’ America didn’t put any of their soldiers’ ‘boots on the ground’ here to stop us, and although they killed a bunch of our soldiers with drone strikes and airstrikes, since they didn’t actually have troops fighting against us we can leave them alone”?
It is obvious when you look at things through the common sense spectrum that these types of angry militant groups are out to kill anyone who does not conform, including Americans. Airstrikes will not dampen their hatred.
See the story at: