After using the phrase “we don’t have a strategy” when responding to a complicated question about his plan of action against the Islamic State two weeks ago, President Barack Obama came back on Wednesday laying out his plan to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the ISIS threat by employing airstrikes in Syria.

After his less-than-sufficient response two weeks ago, right-wing critics were quick to point fingers at him, seeming to suggest that “go in and kill them all” was an adequate approach, despite the disastrous consequences nearly every other time we have reacted in this manner.

Does America remember the last two wars we entered without first having a complete strategy for it?

When our troops went to Iraq, not only did we make things worse, but we also didn’t have an exit strategy. We would do well to support Obama’s decision to take as much time as necessary, to develop thought-out strategies and provide answers to basic questions prior to any interventions. His decision to keep America’s attacks as airstrikes, avoiding putting our troops on Syria’s soil, was also a rational one.

Many Republican politicians were pushing Obama to declare military action as soon as possible, proving they learned nothing from our previous invasions.

Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote an op-ed piece on Aug. 29 that was featured in The New York Times, demanding we “confront ISIS now.”

“But ultimately, ISIS is a military force, and it must be confronted militarily. Mr. Obama has begun to take military actions against ISIS in Iraq, but they have been tactical and reactive half-measures. Continuing to confront ISIS in Iraq, but not in Syria, would be fighting with one hand tied behind our back. We need a military plan to defeat ISIS, wherever it is….A comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS would require more troops, assets, resources and time.”

In the piece, McCain and Graham offer a rationale that sounds an awful lot like former President George W. Bush’s “preventative war” strategy.

In 2002, then-Senator Barack Obama said in a speech in Chicago that he was opposed to “a dumb war … a rash war,” and discussed the “undetermined consequences” that could result from invading Iraq.
We are dealing with that consequence right now, and it’s called ISIS. Our invasion of Iraq in 2008 is responsible for ISIS, a branch of al-Qaeda. We created the Global War on Terror and destroyed state powers in each of the countries we entered, dismantled the regions, and supplied them with military weapons.

Now that Obama is in office, he is sticking with his mantra on not doing stupid stuff. He didn’t rush to make a rash decision just because he received pressure from politicians such as John McCain or Lindsey Graham, who jump to support America’s involvement in a war whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Our country cannot solve this eruption of complex economic, religious and political issues by bringing trucks of soldiers with guns into Syria. I am not advocating isolationism, but it is important to be realistic before we interfere — especially before putting any more of our troops on foreign soil.

America must resist being conned into another war without first having an exit strategy. I appreciate Obama’s wise caution and support his decision to insure whatever we do is truly in the best interest of the United States’ national security.

Jillian Lynch is a broadcast journalism and political philosophy major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter
@jillianm_lynch.

Published on September 11, 2014 at 12:09 am