[icopyright one button toolbar]
The ongoing national debate on what to do, or not to do, about the ISIL threat — or whether it is even a threat — is probably the most intense and divergent debate since the one we had about the Iraq War and its legacy.
There are those who do not believe ISIL poses a threat at all to Americans or America — and/or “is not our problem” — and, therefore, we should do nothing.
There are those who agree with the President that ISIL is an evil group of killers not only posing a mortal threat to people in the region, but “If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States” — a terrorist group we thus must “degrade and ultimately destroy.”
This author is one of them.
Probably the greatest disagreement comes when discussing what to do about the threat, if there is one.
Even among many of those who recognize and abhor the barbaric acts of genocide, rape, torture, etc., committed by ISIL, there is the belief that we should “stay out it” — do nothing — for various reasons.
On the opposite end of the opinion spectrum are those who would bomb ISIL back to the Stone Age and then send in 100,000 troops to finish the job where necessary.
I personally favor the limited scope of military actions, with our allies, and along with other diplomatic, political, humanitarian, training, equipping and funding — or the cut-off of such — initiatives and actions the President has proposed.
Of course, there are all kinds of risks. First and foremost to our troops. Then there is the “slippery slope,” the danger of getting bogged down in another “long war,” and worst of all, as Eugene Robinson asks, “What if Obama’s plan doesn’t work?” What then?
You see, there are all kinds of reasons and excellent arguments for doing nothing — just read the obituaries already being written
And you know what? Those of us who argue for some action to stop the genocide and barbarity, to prevent possible terrorist attacks against Americans and America, really cannot “win” this debate.
Because if there is no terrorist attack sponsored by ISIL, those who claim there is no threat and oppose any action would be able to say “I told you so,” and — to be honest — I would love to lose on that count.
Because if there is a terrorist attack — by ISIL or any other terrorist group — those who oppose any action would be able to blame it on the additional hatred towards us fomented by our actions against ISIL.
Because if we fail in our fight against ISIL, the antagonists will be proven right — they will have “won” the debate.
On the other hand if we succeed in degrading or even “ultimately destroying” ISIL, it will come at such a cost that shouting victory will be almost sacrilegious.
If, God prevent, there is a related terrorist attack against our homeland, I for one will not say, write or shout, “We told you so.”
No, there are no winners.
I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me, with the President, and with so many others for reasons of conscience, morality, policy or for practical, religious, philosophical and other reasons.
But I have only contempt for those who rake the President over the coals solely for cheap, vile, partisan and other odious reasons.
Here’s one:
Lead image: DoD
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.