Nearly a week has passed since President Obama at last announced his tardy strategy for dealing with Isis, the jihadist organization Obama now calls a huge threat only months after dismissing it as the "junior varsity" of jihadism. There's been no shortage of activity, as distinguished from action, from the Obama administration.
Whether or not President Obama intends to send ground troops into combat in Iraq, there is a real danger that the dynamics of the conflict will lead to that result. The time to head off a wider war is now.
As the U.S. launches its first airstrikes against ISIS, we must ask this crucial question: Who is paying for the war? Because, if indeed it is worth fighting for, all of America needs to chip in and share the sacrifice. It is time to reinstate the draft and a war tax to give everyone a real stake in decisions on war.
Resist the tide. Leave law school not as an attorney, but rather as a human being who happens to be an attorney.
Though a ceasefire hangs over Israel and Gaza today, the open wounds from 50 days of conflict remain unresolved.
We've already spent over ten years in Iraq and "terror" hasn't been destroyed. To pretend that another group won't replace ISIL once ISIL is defeated, through another decade of war in Iraq, perhaps, is simply playing a dangerous game of semantics.
Here are five things to consider as we discuss this latest insertion of US military personnel, money, and weaponry into, potentially, another Mideast quagmire -- this one being pitched as the "good" or "justified" Iraq War.
ISIS is cruelly and provocatively murdering innocents. Naturally we are appalled and outraged. They must be brought to justice. Revenge, however, has proved to be quite a corrosive fuel for foreign policy strategy in a hornet's nest of a region even the word "quagmire" does not do justice.
A critical part of America's plan to resolve all issues left unresolved after nine years of war and occupation is to divide the indigenous Sunnis from the "foreign" Sunnis, i.e., ISIS, and "unite" Iraq.
The process of placing the President in suspended animation will involve a metal compound made of carbon and tibanna gas used to smuggle items or transport people across the galaxy.
ll in all, Mr. Obama's decision to go to war in Syria is a poorly thought-out one. It would be a disastrous one if he actually chose to proceed with it. Worst of all, like in Iraq, there would be no clear exit strategy.
After thousands of years of bloody wars among contending tribes, regions, and nations, is it finally possible to dispense with the chauvinist ideas of the past? To judge by President Barack Obama's televised address on the evening of Sept. 10, it is not.
The threat of entering an impending war in Iraq and Syria in order to, according to President Obama, "degrade and ultimately destroy" the terrorist organization ISIS is a major cause for concern among many people. You can't kill "hate" with weapons. But you can instill fear and generate more hatred with them.
While Obama's carbon pollution standards are an important step toward reducing our country's reliance on fossil fuels, they are not enough to force the shift toward clean, renewable energy. These weak standards demonstrate his unwillingness to take the bold actions required to mitigate the catastrophic impacts of climate disruption.
Ironically, just a short week after the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we find ourselves commemorating the 227th anniversary of the ratification of our Constitution. Yet while there is much to mourn about the loss of our freedoms in the years since 9/11, there has been little to celebrate.
As we face the rugged terrain ahead, our marching orders must be the sobering words that speak presciently from the grave of the late Coretta Scott King: "Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won, you earn it and win it in every generation."