Monday, September 01, 2014
ISIS and the American Politician – As the World Dithers – the Times Lays Blame on – Republicans
ISIS, the rapid Islamic group that has established a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, killing anyone whom they please in the most barbaric manners, including children has taken front and center stage in the American Political area. The question of stopping ISIS in Iraq and Syria by the use of U.S. military intervention has come under some scrutiny by both major political parties. The President has taken his usual steps in being deliberative before he acts, something he has done since taking office. This often leads to missed opportunities and or a worsening of the situation; however, it is his style of being cautious before fully committing U.S. forces.
That cautious quality has the media and both parties in a quandary as politicians’ from both sides of the aisle see the threat of Isis on many levels, not only to the middle east, but to our homeland, as well as Europe and other parts of the world.
NBC News on Senator Feinstein’s remarks that Obama has been too cautious in this situation, suggests that the Democrat from California may be running out of patience, as the public is becoming increasing aware of the real danger that ISIS presents – California being a border state. (NBC News)
CBS News reporting the Presidents delay on strategy - notes that both Republicans’ and Democrats alike are in a quandary over the situation – agreeing with one another.
However, the New York Times, true to the party line, suggests that it is Republican’s only that are politicizing the crisis, and that there is “nothing to see here – move along – the President is in control.
Be that as it may, the U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria may need a buffer via the Iraq and Kurdish forces who are in the thick of the fighting. It is, after all, their country, and other than support (air and weapons); ISIS may be dealt with fairly easily – with a little pushback.
The threats being made to the U.S, suggest that those in ISIS already here (See any Chicago newscast about threats being made in that City by said group), might come to pass, however, one has to wonder if those commanding ISIS forces, understand the psyche of the general American public – unlike any nation in the world, where, when invaded, lay down and take abuse, the U.S. fights back.
One might wonder what ISIS would encounter if, with boots on the ground, in say, a border state, say Texas, might meet once they moved to attack. One might not see Texan’s rolling over so easily, ISIS does not understand the basic independent streak inherent in most U.S. citizens. It is not so much that as a nation, relying on the government is primary, it is also not so much that as a nation, there is a political body in sync that makes all deliberations until it is too late. It is more likely that from Massachusetts, to San Francisco, and places in between, Urban-Suburban-and Rural militias would wipe ISIS out – or as one politician suggested – bomb them back to the Stone Age.
Therefore although we may have interests in the Middle East – it may behoove the U.S. to employ air strikes and tactical support there, and shore up protection in the U.S. – otherwise, the citizens of this nation would most likely do it for them. One would suggest that anytime that intelligence suggests that the U.S. is a target, those from both parties, would align, rather than take political opportunities – it is clearly not the way of the United States. It is not a Republican or Democrat issue; it is an issue that drives all U.S. Citizens or those hoping to become citizens. Furthermore, the New York Times piece is a bit disingenuous suggesting that this is a situation where Republican’s are politicizing an atrocious entity.