With ISIS becoming a growing threat and potential global destabilizing force, should The U.S. take a leadership role, as part of a large international effort, to defeat it?
—
In recent months international events–including the increasing power, brutality and rise of ISIS (Islamic State Iraq and Syria) in Iraq and Syria, as well as the video of the recent killings of American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley–have been getting substantial media coverage. In addition, a new NBC News/Wall Street poll found that Americans increasingly believe the U.S. should be more active in world affairs.
According to the NBC/WSJ poll, 40 percent want the U.S. to be less active in international affairs (down from 47% in April); 27 percent want to be more active (up from 19% in April); and 29 percent want to stay at current level (down from 30% in April). This change is primarily from Republicans who would like more activity in world affairs by a 41 percent-to-34 percent margin. By contrast, only 15 percent of Democrats favor more engagement.
President Obama plans to outline his ISIS strategy–to take on and deal with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria–in his address to the nation from the Senate floor 9 p.m. Wednesday, September 10, 2014. The president indicated on “Meet The Press” Sunday, that U.S. troops will not be deployed but has authorized additional 350 troops to Iraq at the request of the U.S. Department of State “the request approved today will allow some previously deployed military personnel to depart Iraq, while at the same time provide a more robust, sustainable security force for our personnel and facilities in Baghdad.” (According to a statement released by the White House).
House Speaker John Boehner said that the militants pose a serious threat that must be dealt with in Iraq, Syria or wherever they exist, but that congress will not make any decision on a vote until the President lays out his plan. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, indicated that the President “needs to present this plan to the Congress and the American People, and where the president believes he lacks authority to execute such a strategy, he needs to explain to the Congress how additional authority for the use of force will protect America…The threat from ISIL is real and it’s growing. It’s time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response.” (7online/news)
Putting aside, for the moment, the pathetic lack of any leadership from the GOP Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader respectively, it remains to be seen if the House and Senate will support, authorize and fund the forthcoming plan of the President–and work with the administration and the international coalition it is building–to address the ISIS threat.
The threat of ISIS is real and danger looms large for the Middle East, Arab World, Europe, U.S (probably in the form of lone wolf attacks) and the rest of the world. A large international effort by a coalition of nations is required (inclusive of people and treasure) for this political, military and diplomatic effort.
Should the U.S lead and coordinate an international effort to defeat the ISIS threat and if so, should “boots of the ground,” in addition to air strikes and arms, be an option?
What do you think?
Photo: The U.S. Army /Flicker
The post Do More Americans Want a More Active U.S. in World Affairs? appeared first on The Good Men Project.