THE ISSUE: President Barack Obama announced Sept. 10 that the United States would begin limited military action meant to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. ISIL has been responsible for widespread violence in Iraq and Syria and for several high-profile executions of journalists.
View the other viewpoint here.
By operating under laws designed for another conflict and allying with repressive regimes, the President has put us in a precarious strategic and moral position in the country’s fight against ISIL.
The world’s oldest constitutional democracy ought to honor its founding document. Congress now needs to take decisive action for or against further military action.
President Obama is making military decisions justified by laws passed in 2001 and 2002. By updating legislation, Congress can ensure further deployment and assaults won’t face the same partisan scrutiny that the 2003 invasion of Iraq did.
The U.S. should also be discerning in its choice of allies. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are among them. These countries have strong diplomatic ties to the U.S. but troubled human rights records.
In 2013, Egyptian security forces killed at least 817 pro-Mohamed Morsi protesters, and haven’t been held accountable for their actions, according to Human Rights Watch.
Saudi Arabia has imprisoned Shiite religious rights activists, according to Freedom House. Do these sound like countries with which we should, as President Obama said, share a common security and humanity?
American leaders should uphold their Constitution and choose allies wisely if they want to avoid further protracted military involvement in the region.
