Intervention against the Islamic State:

Juan Moreno
English 1010
Intervention Against the Islamic State
ISIS the short abbreviation for Islamic state of Iraq and Syria, an abbreviation that has
become synonymous with terrorism, brutality and cold blooded murder of innocents. The current
enemy of the world in the eyes of many, this group of extremists has captured the spotlight with
its brutal media tactics and growing rise to power in the Middle East quickly becoming a force to
be reckoned with. Since the outbreak of the Islamic state in 2011 the U.S. has found itself in a
tough spot politically. The country is divided on whether or not congress should take full-fledged
military action against ISIS, some like James Kitfield who states his opinions in the article: Why
Washington should Declare war on ISIS, believe that the U.S. is being slow in its actions and
avoiding conflict because of the risk involved. Others like Mark Thompson who writes the
article: why the US should not wage war against ISIS like Afghanistan and Iraq, firmly believe
that the U.S. does not need to take action against ISIS especially if its going to be on the scale of
previous conflicts. Both sides are clearly biased in their political agendas but their points are
solid and worth taking into account.
Kitfield strongly states his dislike for the current state in which the congress is unwilling
to take action against ISIS. He believes that ISIS is increasing as a threat and decisive action
needs to be taken in order to protect U.S. citizens and allies. He articulates that ISIS has attracted
an estimated 12,000 foreign fighters, whether it be European or even American, the terrorists
group is growing at an exponential rate not only from within but from the outside as well. While
Obama is able to authorize certain action such as strategic airstrikes and humanitarian help,
congress is unwilling to allow a more direct form of action fearing that putting troops on the

Intervention against the Islamic State:

ground could cause another drawn out conflict such as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kitfield
is very obviously a republican and most of what he writes and some of his more extreme
republican ideologies can be spotted throughout leading readers to take political sides.
Mark Thompson takes on a different position, he believes that the U.S. should use tactics
against ISIS that were used at the beginning of both the Iraq and Afghani conflicts. These
consisted of smaller more speed oriented operations that quickly pushed the enemy back and
eliminated threats effectively. He goes on to explain that the problem with these two wars was
the fact that the U.S. then stayed in order to start nation building processes, these caused both
wars to drag out for years after the initial attacks costing trillions of dollars and thousands of
American lives and resources. He explains that in many ways its the pottery barn rule that drives
nations to stay in countries long after the main threat has been neutralized. Thompson firmly
believes that sometimes militaries need to take action for the simple fact that there are evil
people in the world that need to be taken out and in this case that is ISIS. While clearly he is of
the Democratic Party and is very against an all-out military campaign against ISIS he strongly
believes that there are better ways to go about it.
There is no denying that ISIS has become one of the biggest enemies to our nation and
more importantly to the countries that it terrorizes. Its shock and awe tactics are what draws the
most attention to itself and incite the most passion in people. But does the U.S. as military might
have the responsibility to face ISIS in an all-out war? or are the implications too risky for an
already war fatigued nation. There is no clear cut answer but facts are facts, the U.S. is in a
position of dominance on the global stage and while a long drawn out conflict is unquestionably
not the answer what is the answer is a strategic attack on a smaller scale utilizing some of the
same tactics that were implanted at the beginning of previous conflicts in order to gain the upper

Intervention against the Islamic State:

hand and flush the enemy out. The U.S. military has the resources and technology to make this
possible and ethical for the surrounding nations.
The subject of war especially in our day and age is one that is extremely sensitive, long
gone are the days of clear cut motives for declaring or engaging in war. Politically, economically
and ethically wars are more complicated than ever and while both authors bring up some good
logical points in their responses there are many questions raised as well. For example, Kitfield
was very adamant about a full scale attack on ISIS but he omitted what exactly would be needed
for such an operation and what the consequences would be. Would an all-out war really crush
ISIS into submission or would there be a similar fallout like has been seen in the previous
Middle East campaigns.
Thompson on the other hand was more rational in his writing and brought up some less
emotionally driven points, using history as a foundation he foreshadowed what some of the
consequences would be if the U.S. did engage in a conventional war with ISIS. Thompson did
however leave out any sort of clear cut solution instead just explaining why it would be a bad
idea to mobilize the U.S. military against ISIS so drastically. His approach was definitely more in
the middle ground than Kitfields was but failed to engage on an emotional level.
Both authors both authors represented opposing political parties and this could be seen in
their writing as they gave biased opinions and pre conceived notions about the presidency and
the actions of congress, Kitfields bias could be noticed whenever he would talk about President
Obama, without insulting him directly he would scoff at his decisions and fail to ackowldege any
of the clearly positive actions that he had taken. Thomas while not as politically driven, there
were several instances where his bias could be seen in the writing especially when reffereing to

Intervention against the Islamic State:

the previous presidency and the consequences that George W. Bush left behind in the wake of the
Iraq and Afghani conflict.
The subject of ISIS is a delicate one at best, as they currently stand they are among the
top enemies worldwide and their reign of terror has been broadcasted globally, instilling passion
and anger towards their actions. As they mercilessly kill innocents and pillage the cities of
helpless nations is the U.S. the country to look to for aid? As a powerful nation with a superior
army it would seem that it is their responsibility to wage war against the Islamic state. But this
war cannot be fought conventionally it needs to be fought intelligently and without making the
same mistakes from previous conflicts. Nation building cannot be the goal, a swift and effective
attack on the terrorists is all that is needed.