Connor Whitesell

Why Are We Going Back?

Military action against ISIS will endanger the future of the American people by enraging
the people of the Middle East.
On August 9
th
, 2014, President Barack Obama gave the order to launch air attacks
against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also known as ISIS. ISIS was a branch of Al
Qaeda until last year when ISIS leader, Al Baghdadi, and the leader of the Al Qaeda
core, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had a disagreement. This disagreement made the Core
leadership so outraged with Al Baghdadi that they decided to cut all ties to ISIS. This
was the creation of the ISIS we know today.
One of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration was the end of the War
on Terror. Obama stated, You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say I said Id
end the war in Iraq, I ended it. President Obama (Info Wars). He says that he ended the
war in Iraq but now he has started airstrikes in Syria against ISIS. The question now is,
why are we going back when President Obama considered this the goal for his terms?
In a recent presentation the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center at
Brookings Institute stated that there are no ISIS cells in America and that, [t]his is no
pre-9/11 Al Qaeda. We have no creditable information that they are planning an attack
(Time). The director of the National Counterterrorism Center said there is no current
threat. We are attacking both terrorist and innocent civilians in a preemptive strike that
is raising tensions and may not be needed, in the Middle East. We are creating fear and
hate which could cause retaliation againts American civilians.
This raises the logical question, why are we attacking? U.S ofcials have said that a
direct threat to home is not necessary to warrant military action. President Obama said
in a press conference on September 7, that The groups military success in Syria and
Iraq threatens the interests of the US in the Middle East (Time). Think about this we are
attacking a group of extremists on the other side of the world to protect our interests
like oil and not human lives.
This brings up another question, how efective are these airstrikes against ISIS? Many in
the government believe that air strikes are not efective without the use of ground forces
to gain intelligence. Now the debate in the government has turned to the overall failure
of these air strikes. They have not halted or even slowed the progression of ISIS
towards the boarder of Turkey.
Are we morally obligated to do anything against this terrorist cells? I believe that the
concept of deontology, frst started by Immanuel Kant, fts with our current issue well
because it focuses on what ones duty is or what one is morally obligated to do in any
given situation.
Immanuel Kant came up with a framework that can be used to categorize whether
something is a duty or an inclination. First one is asked, did you do this of your own free
will, also called autonomy. Or did you do it because of an outside force such as pain or
pleasure and laws known as heteronomy? Finally, Kant would urge us to consider
whether our decision, or law (namely, declaring war on ISIS) satisfes the two
categorical imperatives.The two imperatives are as follows: 1). Universalize your maxim
and 2). Treat people as rather than means to an end. Universalizing your maxim means
should this be a law? The second imperative simply means to treat people with dignity
rather than as as a way to achieve your goals.
Take the reasoning for the war On ISIS and put it through the deontology framework. Let
us look at the frst set of criteria Autonomy vs. Heteronomy. Did President Barack
Obama issue this attacks on his own volition or was it because on outside force made
the decision for him? It is clear that President Obama made this decision based on
outside forces such as fear and pressure from people in the government (EVIDENCE?).
According to Kant, a decision made in this way renders the ensuring action morally
unjust. Without even going into the categorical imperative we have seen that
deontologist would say that the war on ISIS is not the right thing to do. Yes, but it would
be good to do that to add more force to your argument--- go ahead and play out the
Categorical Imperative in a new paragraph.
It is true that the issues of terrorism and war in the Middle East need to be dealt with,
but war is not the best option. We dont need to destroy the terrorist cells that call this
region of the world home. Rather, we need to help the people who live in these
regions. If we educate and feed the people in these regions to help the oppressed
people gain their freedom from these same terrorist cells that we are trying to fght. If we
also help create a sustainable infrastructure in these regions it will be harder for terrorist
organization to become seated in a position of power.
Violence is not the answer to the violence of ISIS especially at this time. I believe this because of
the letter from Osama Bin laden to the United States of America. In this letter Osama states the
reasoning for why he attacked America. eason one! "ou attacked us and keep attacking us. #e
then goes on to give specific e$amples of these attacks% such as the war in &alestine. Because of
these facts I believe that more aggression in this area of the world by the U.S. will only inflame
the issue. 'his will then cause the future of American citi(ens to become endangered.
Work cited
"Obama Flashback: I Said Id End the War in Iraq and I Ended It."Infowars.
N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Oct. !"#.
"$nderstandin% the ISIS &hreat t' (mericans at )'me." Time. &ime, n.d.
Web. !* Oct. !"#.
"$S Strate%+ &' Fi%ht ISIS: Obama ,et With Sec-rit+ .'-ncil (b'-t /lan &'
01e%rade (nd $ltimatel+ 1estr'+0 ISIS." International Business Times.
N.p., n.d. Web.!* Oct. !"#.
"ISIS &rail '2 &err'r." ABC News. (3. Ne4s Net4'rk, n.d. Web. 3 Oct. !"#.
"F-ll &e5t: 3in 6adens 06etter t' (merica0" The Guardian. N.p., n.d. Web. 3
Oct. !"#.