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.
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.
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.
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.
Those of us who have served in the military know the best-outlined plans can quickly be torn up by the realities of combat. The question facing the Obama administration is what happens next if things don't go according to plan?
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.
Honor killings might not be preventable among the current generation of adult men, but certainly we can bring the new generation of young boys closer to understanding themselves and the other half of the universe made up of women and girls.
Obama's war violates the UN Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, making it part of U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Obama's war also violates the War Powers Resolution, which permits the president to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only in three situations.
Either the president needs some new faces in the Office of Legal Counsel, or his team needs to do what many of his allies on Capitol Hill are calling for: Ask Congress to grant new statutory authority for the military campaign against ISIL in both Iraq and Syria. What is the administration afraid of?
Obama said a week ago he did not have a strategy to combat ISIS, and that now he does. He was right the first time.
Abiding by international norms is what most governments do unless and until those norms can be amended and Abadi should understand that without a truly fresh start, pro-Kurdish voices will become louder.
The need to fight fascism and prevent genocide are as close to self evident truths as humanity might wish to invent. When both present themselves in the form of ISIS the question is how, rather than why, they must be destroyed.
British journalists are wrong. Countries do not frequently go to war without strategies, with flimsy aims, bad intel, or for spurious reasons. If it appears that they are doing so, then it is usually because war aims have to be concealed. Concealment can be necessary for many reasons.
The White House formally submitted its $500 million request to Congress on June 26. The money would go to train and equip "appropriately vetted" members of the Syrian opposition. That's a lot different from "moderate rebel forces," and it is yet another indication that we simply do not know who the "moderates" are in Syria.
The Free Syrian Army, caught between the al-Assad air forces and the Islamic State group's territorial expansion, will benefit directly from an air campaign that is simultaneously against ISIS but does not allow any other air military activity.