Here we go again. It's like picking a sunflower, changing your mind after every fallen petal.
The debate on whether to have troops in Iraq has been a shifty one. Do we want to protect our troops and bring them home safe, or do we keep them deployed to potentially keep regional stability and continue global militarism?
Those concerns were highlighted by former governor and presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Sunday. Appearing on "Face The Nation," Romney explains that “what we should have been doing by now is have American troops staying in Iraq. That was something we argued for years ago; the President didn't do it.”
The appearance was timely considering that ISIS just released another video that showed the beheading of American hostage Peter Kassig, a foreign aid worker and Iraq war veteran.
Romney continued, saying that “the right course for this country is to do whatever it takes to destroy and defeat ISIS.” Really, Mitt Romney, “whatever is takes”?
First off, that is extremely vague and does not provide any real strategy to get the job done. If you're going to run for President again, that surely cannot be your ISIS strategy. Second, come on Mitt, you're acting like ISIS has come over to America and stolen Rafalca, your precious Olympic horse. Yes, ISIS is bad, but seriously, Mitt, they are fighting on the other side of the world. It's not like Obama has ignored the issue; he is actually attacking them with airstrikes with some success.
Yet, during a G20 Summit in Australia, President Obama did say that there are always circumstances in which the U.S. might need to deploy ground troops.
As of now, the fight against ISIS is working but definitely not near the goal of destroy and defeat. The issue is that the enemy is more of an idea than an army aimed at attacking the U.S. The idea of the Islamic state is one that is fluxed throughout the Middle East amongst people who would rather see one state formed together than the multiple state region that currently exists. The problem is that this idea has been lashed out through militant jihadists instead of diplomats.
But back to the issue of U.S. troops. It seems that the deployment of ground troops to fight the war is a very sensitive issue with the American public. We don't want our soldiers to die fighting a cause we don't believe in.
So what is the cause to sell to the American public? Well, one hard sell could be that ISIS is hellbent on destroying the United States of America at all costs. But that simply isn't their primary goal. They want to control the region and create one state. Common sense tells me that is going to take a long time, especially with the U.S. doing airstrikes.
Sure, the U.S. could bring in ground troops and potentially defeat and destroy ISIS. Or the U.S. could bring ground troops in and do the same job they are already doing. We don't know how effective they could be. We do have emperical history from the Iraq War – spoiler alert: The troops didn't help.
The point is that ISIS is not that big of a threat to the United States. Ground troops could help, or they could not help. We are acting like ISIS is the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We are not at war here, just trying to keep the world stable. I know everyone wants to stop the U.S. from being attacked, but has ISIS demonstrated the ability to do so?