Legal or Something Else?
In the beginning of class this evening we briefly discussed how the United States is carrying out an airstrike campaign in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), while justifying their actions by saying there was an imminent threat of attack. In a recent development, the U.S. has announced that the bombings have extended to the al Qaeda group known as Khorasan. While the legal basis of the attacks are slightly questionable the article (below) says:
"Senior administration officials said the airstrikes against Khorasan fall within the president's legal basis for striking Islamic State because the group is "an extension of the threat posed by al Qaeda and their associated forces."
Furthermore, the deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes states that "[Khorasan] had very clear and concrete ambitions to launch external operations against the United States or Europe…" As far as effectiveness of these strikes go, there has been early indications over twitter and jihadist websites that Khorasan leader Muhsin al Fadhli has been killed.
My questions for you are:
- Do you think these airstrikes are enough to subdue the threat?
- Do you agree with the legal basis of this attack based on the evidence discussed by U.S. officials?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/al-qaeda-groups-islamic-state-both-targeted-in-syria-by-u-s-strikes-1411453187
While I believe these airstrikes have been a great first offensive against Khorasan and other Islamic extremist groups, I do not think they will be enough to subdue the threat they present to the United States of America. These extremist groups such as ISIS and Khorasan have plotted to and have killed thousands of innocent people over the past several months. Heck, ISIS has done things that made they too extreme for even Al Queda. ISIS has killed, tortured, crucified, and even beheaded Westerners on video. These groups must be stopped and I think the only way to stop them is to send a ground force into Iraq and Syria. For me, its not just about defending the United States and its allies anymore. It's about defending innocent people from extremists who will go through drastic measures to get their point across. As far as legality goes, I believe as long as the United States believed it was under a direct threat from one of these groups that its actions were perfectly legal. Legal or not though, I believe it is the United States duty as the beacon of freedom, equality, and liberty in the world to deal with these extremist groups.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I disagree slightly with Clay's views. Yes, the slaughter and torture that ISIS has openly committed has been atrocious. Yes, it is obvious that they are targeting westerners (along with ethnic/religious groups that do not agree with them.) However, I think the actions of the United States are questionable, specifically because there is an international body (the UN security council) that is made to deal with these issues. What the United States thinks is incorrect is not what the whole world thinks is incorrect. I am uncomfortable with the mindset that the US should dictate world affairs. I agree, the threat of ISIS scares me, but I would like more international agreement on these actions. In the case that there was a specific threat to the United States that these bombings prevented, then it would be successful. I am doubtful, however, that this is the case.
ReplyDelete