Obama is stating that he will not send in more ground troops in Iraq. He also stated that if air strikes aren't proven to be effective enough against ISIS, he would recommend sending in troops into Iraq. He believes that "If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven. We will find you eventually."
I do not believe that we will be able to fight ISIS without troops on the ground, shooting one person is different than bombing a city. Also, I am not an expert but, bombing innocent people causes them to not trust you. I mean if someone wanted to bomb Placentia because there was a murderer hiding in the neighborhood I would be slightly offended.
Indeed, it sounds like he is contradicting himself. But we can't forget that this is not an easy situation, even for Obama, and in such a case it's normal to change your opinions and options because we don't know how ISIS will react to the attemps.
I believe he is in a state of political damage control. This doesn't exactly reflect his boasts during the 2012 campaign about "ending the war in Iraq" like he promised. No matter what he says about it only being an air support mission, it is warfare. Conservatives and liberals alike are unhappy with how he is handling the situation. If anyone hasn't seen Former President Bush's speech he made regarding the dangers of pulling out of Iraq prematurely look it up. Try FoxNews. He "predicted" that these exact same problems would arise.
Also, politics aside, when a President makes decisions regarding warfare/defense, and he goes against the advice of his advisors and top generals, or is not on the same page as them, there should be cause for concern. Yes, he is Commander-in-Chief, but his military advisors are there for a reason.
He is pretty much contradicting himself. Many already assume that air strikes alone will not be enough to destroy ISIS, not to mention the consequences of bombing innocents as collateral. Ground troops are a must, not matter how much Obama insists that they won't be needed except for as a last resort.
Personally, I think that if an organization outside of the U.S. makes a threat to us, and they have shown how serious they are, then the U.S should get involved.
However, America does not need another ground war, and the air strikes are going to kill innocent people, which would undoubtedly cause some problems. Unfortunately though, this is most likely going to be how we solve the ISIS problem.
I agree with what Jamina had to say. Obama may be contradicting himself, but he needs a lot of options to think about in order to deal with the terror threats that ISIS is putting out. We have to keep an open mind and explore all propositions if we want to take ISIS down.
-- Edited by Amber Kennedy on Monday 22nd of September 2014 05:45:14 PM
I think he is contradicting himself because air strikes will probably not be effective enough to stop Isis and I believe that sending in more ground
troops is neccesary. Obama said if you threaten America youwill find no safe haven, however he is willing to do very little to stop this terrorist group.
There is an alternative to sending American ground troops: training moderate Syrian, Iraqi, and Kurdish forces to fight on the ground for themselves. With the assistance of NATO air support, they can carve into IS territory. I think we must make sure the Iraqi government invites as many Sunni fighters as they can, because the tension between Sunni and Shias seem to be at an all time high. Even the Baathist socialist secular Sunni's would rather join extremist IS, than a Shia government. No more Americans have to die in Iraq.
