Thursday, September 11, 2014
White House Proposes MIlitary Campagin Vs. ISIS
On the 13th anniversary of one of the most tragic and memeroable events of the 21st century. A day after Obama's address proposing a military campaign in Syria, the men and women in arms will not be dusting their m-16's and prepping their uranium plated bullets yet. Barring congressional approval with congressional elections a few weeks away the proposed military campaign has hit a yield sign. No vote has been scheduled yet, its looking as if congress is going to put this off until after elections. “I'm shocked to see Congress punt on its war powers,” said Charles A. Stevenson, professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, who called the lack of action an “abdication.” “They're all scared,” Stevenson said. “They're evading their responsibility: The Democrats don't really want to vote for a war because a lot of them were elected voting against war, and the Republicans because they probably can't agree on what kind of war to approve.” Obama has used his executive powers to "ok" Air Strikes in Syria, with massive resistance from the United States European allies. The rhetoric being spoken of about ISIS is very similiar to the rhetoric that was propagated during the insurgence into Afghanistan and Iraq. It's common knowledge that the U.S created and funded Al Queda and the Taliban (Afghanistan) at their inception and funded Saddam Hussein (Iraq) for nearly three decades. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been publicly accusing Saudi Arabia and Qatar of funding ISIS for months. Several reports have detailed how private Gulf funding to various Syrian rebel groups has splintered the Syrian opposition and paved the way for the rise of groups like ISIS and others. When confronted with the problem, Gulf leaders often justify allowing their Salafi constituents to fund Syrian extremist groups by pointing back to what they see as a failed U.S. policy in Syria and a loss of credibility after President Obama reneged on his pledge to strike Assad after the regime used chemical weapons. Though Iraqi's Prime Minister credibility is shaky granted his secterian policies that are credited to the rise of sunni Isis in eastern Iraq. ISIS is a terrible threat to the security and freedom of many Iraqis and Syrians, they're campaign of murder of non-sunnis has been grotesque and inhumane. But the Obama administrations reasons for proposing war aren't concrete “If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region—including to the United States,” Obama said. “While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners—including Europeans and some Americans—have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.” The reasons for entering a military campaign as proposed by the White House has a lot of couldas in it. But for now my fellow peace ambassadors we'll have to wait for a congressional vote on the matter. “We had a golden opportunity to do the right thing, that also would have been the politically expedient thing, to vote to not go to war in Syria,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky)speaking on Congress lack of action in exercising their war powers.
at 5:46 PM