Times Newsweekly EDITORIAL
What To Do About ISIS
What must be done to stop the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) from savagely and publicly beheading American missionaries and other innocents under their rule?
President Barack Obama can say its “evil,” which it is, and other politicians talk about the horrors of these public executions. A handful of troops have been dispatched to the region; since August, air strikes against ISIS happen on an almost daily basis.
But the public, disgusting executions ISIS carries out continues nearly unfettered.
It would be interesting to know how our readers feel about these online videos that are shown on the nightly news shows and written about in newspapers. What do you—as you read this—feel should be done in response to these murders?
Should hundreds of thousands of armed forces be deployed into the area that harbors ISIS and proceed to destroy them, one by one?
It seems unbelievable that a country like ours, the United States of America, could rally together just days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 and, within four years’ time, lead the defeat of the Japanese, German and Italian armies, forcing them into unconditional surrender.
The country was similarly motivated following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to defeat the enemy that killed almost 3,000 people on our turf. We went to Afghanistan and bombed al-Qaeda and the Taliban enough to send them running for the hills—but our limited action there kept their pulse.
We then turned to Iraq to depose the dictator Saddam Hussein and prematurely declared “Mission Accomplished” weeks after forcing him out of power. But anything resembling order in Iraq disintegrated, Islamic extremists filled the power vacuum Hussein left behind and started killing and maiming American soldiers by the thousands.
Thirteen years after 9/11, and the Taliban is still a menace to Afghanistan’s fragile, corrupt democracy; the Iraqi government is incapable of keeping their country together; and ISIS—a force so dark even al-Qaeda wants nothing to do with it—emerged like a grave disease, spreading its bloody wrath upon Iraq and civil war-torn Syria.
Since World War II, the U.S. tried to quell tension around the world with “limited war” campaigns, starting in Korea and followed soon thereafter by Vietnam. These efforts cost thousands of American lives but did little to either preserve democracy in one region or peace in another; the Korean peninsula remains divided, and Vietnam eventually fell completely under communist control.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that this same limited war approach in the Middle East resolved virtually nothing—and may have actually made things worse. Now, with the perennial powderkeg between Israel and Palestine set to ignite following Tuesday’s terrorist attack at an East Jerusalem synagogue, the entire region is on the verge of disaster.
What do we do now? Stay out of the region and let the chips fall where they may? Continue our limited involvement that has done little to change the status quo? Or does this war-weary nation go all in once more and send thousands of men and women to fight the barbarians at the gate?
If you were president, what would you do? If you were a member of Congress, what would you do?
We want to hear from you on the Middle East crisis. Email us at email@example.com or write us at P.O. Box 863299, Ridgewood, NY 11386-0299.
Let the world know how you feel, because in the long run, we will have to solve our own problems, too.