Two viewpoints on the extent of U.S. intervention against ISIS
For the motion: Ben Crawford
The best political position to come out of the 20th century is best summed up in three words: "death to fascism."
It's a strange concept if you think about it. Wishing death to anything or anyone in such a broad sense isn't something normal people usually do, except in hyperbole or periods of unusual anger.
And it isn't anything like "death to the patriarchy" or "death to racism." In these terms, one is (usually) wishing for the death of a mode of thought, instead of those who follow its teachings.
"Death to fascism" is different because it also means death to all those who practice it. Because fascism, unlike racism and sexism, cannot be tolerated in any form in a democratic society.
This is an extreme-sounding phrase. In fact, it is an extreme phrase because of it's encompassing nature.
But, in my opinion, it is also a necessary one.
Scoff all you like. The fact is that ISIS (or whatever acronym you prefer) is the largest and most dangerous fascist movement at the present time. It is not glib to compare it to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. It's M.O. is the same: to expand by any means necessary.
It is similar to both the USSR and the Hitler state in that it uses an metanarrative to achieve its ends. The justification for their act comes from Islam, as the USSR's came from a bastardized form of communism and as Hitler's came from a mixture of race theory and folk myth.
Capitulation to this is capitulation to fascism. There are no other words for it.
Just as a normal person would not abide having Pol Pot as a roommate, the civilized world cannot and should not abide having ISIS anywhere on its surface.
The arguments against this are pacifist in nature, and are a gut reaction from Bush's incalculable stupidity in conducting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
If 9/11 taught us anything, it taught us that we live in a world where we cannot safely "pack up and go home." What affects Iraq affects us.
Some say that leaving ISIS alone is the answer, and that it will collapse eventually.
But from what we know, ISIS has adapted well to modernity. They have the resources and the know-how to turn a movement into a business, and a business into an empire. Just because a regime is disgusting does not mean that it will fall on its own. (North Korea is a perfect example.)
For this reason, if no others, ISIS deserves our full attention and that of our full military arsenal.
And, once again, the old phrase remains the most relevant: "death to fascism."
Against the motion: Kathleen Schipano
The way forward is not to go back to where we’ve been. Militarizing against ISIS would do mean undoing one of the greatest feats of the Obama administration: extracting the American troops from Iraq.
U.S. involvement in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion and that already staggering number could increase to $6 trillion over the next 40 years due to interest. Measure that up with the current $17 trillion in U.S. national debt, and I hardly see how militarizing against ISIS is a profitable venture for anyone.
Stepping away from the analytical standpoint, the death toll from the U.S. led invasion in Iraq reached 500,000 according to a 2013 study. Half a million human beings will never talk or think or move again because of U.S. involvement in Iraq. I don’t see the justification. I don’t see anything gained from the loss of those lives.
Before you grab for your bumper stickers that declare that you will “Never Forget” the events of 9/11, before you tell me that letting ISIS be is “letting the terrorists win,” let me point to the numbers above and ask you: is this not terror?
What is the goal of a terrorist organization? To use fear mongering and intimidation for political gains. We let our fear drive us into a war where we lost lives and trillions of dollars to gain nothing but a false sense of control that we will never actually possess.
To allow the admittedly grotesque acts of ISIS to propel us back into the pattern of throwing money and soldiers at a problem until it “goes away” or “we win” will only give them what they want. They want to weaken the powers that could stop their political advances.
There has been too much violence. There have been too many costs. Militarizing against this organization so early is not the way to go.
I think people will read this as a pacifists view. It’s not — it’s just accepting that there will be fear in this life and throwing weapons and troops at it is not always the answer. Sometimes there isn’t a clear answer, and unfortunately and not surprisingly, I as a journalism student do not have the answer for what we should do to groups like this, but I don’t think shooting at it makes it go away.
It’s hard to say that there is no answer, but I think for now inaction is the best action. We cannot jump the gun and start firing blankly into a country where innocent civilians could be casualties of our inability to cope with fear while we decide on a wise, or at least well-thought-out course of action.