​Back to Iraq?

Our opinion // The US should be very cautious about expanding our involvement in the Middle East

This week, the United States began air strikes in Syria in an attempt to disarm ISIS who is causing all sorts of problems in Iraq in attempt to take it over. The move marks a significant reengagement of the United States in military action in Iraq after previously pulling all troops from there as the vast majority of the American people had wanted.

We should be very cautious about prolonging the inevitable in Iraq. Will these airstrikes really solve the problem? President Obama essentially rode his way to office on promises of withdrawals from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The withdrawal from Iraq took longer than expected and the one in Afghanistan has yet to happen. While it’s true that as a democratic Commander in Chief, no matter what President Obama does with the military, he is bound to be criticized. But we need to remember the enormous expense our efforts in Iraq have already cost and of course not forget the loss of American soldiers’ lives. While some may say that’s why you keep fighting, to make sure those deaths weren’t in vain, the correct way to look at it is should we even have been there in the first place and at what point do you realize that no matter what we do over there, the end result will always be the same. We can’t say there forever and we can’t continue to spend billions of dollars on foreign problems with so many issues at home.

President Obama has already ruled out sending ground troops back in to solve the issues in Iraq; however, his generals have publicly said if these airstrikes fail, they may recommend doing just that. Already as expected, there is a chorus of armchair military experts continuing a steady drumbeat of constant criticism of President Obama’s airstrike policy as being doomed to fail and not going far enough. This is not surprising as there is a whole military-industrial complex that would significantly benefit from another increase in military involvement. Our engagement in this go-around in Iraq started in 2003; it’s now 11 years later. Had the American people known our involvement would’ve lasted this long and cost this much, do you think they would’ve said the cost is worth it?

What do we gain by continually remaining there? Of course no one wants Iraq to descend into chaos and ISIS to take it over. But would anyone really support sending American troops back into Iraq and the potential elongation of our involvement that would result? If the Iraqi troops can’t defend themselves now after over a decade of us helping and training them, when will they ever be able to?

No one wants to preside over defeat or seeing whatever gains we did make go by the wayside. But it’s important to remember that if you didn’t put us there, maybe it’s not such a big deal if you finally get us out for good regardless of the result.

There also seems to be a lot of hyperbole and fear-mongering being spread around about these Islamic terrorists potentially coming here to the United States or being smuggled through the southern border that are extremely unfounded and have no basis in fact according to our intelligence agencies and the Department of Homeland Security. Better to fight ‘em over there before we have to fight them over here is what they say. It’s this same type of fear and logic that resulted in tanks being given to police departments all across North Dakota. Does anyone really think there’s an imminent threat from ISIS terrorists invading America just because some conservative blogger says so?

Sometimes the threat is overblown and the fear is unfounded because it’s being pushed by those with an agenda of keeping us permanently engaged in military action just to prove that they were right all along. It’s easy to see through this, they leak stories to friendly members of the media in order to push their side of the argument just as they did in many cases with false information in order to make the case for war against Iraq. We need to remember a lot of these same people criticizing President Obama for not going far enough are the same ones who put us there.

President Obama needs to remember that he will never quiet those critics who have been nipping at his heels from day one. He should remember the people who put him in office for promising to change our constant involvement in military actions such as this. It starts with airstrikes and spreads from there. Tread lightly, Mr. President. This may be an unsolvable problem that these people need to sort out for themselves, regardless of the end result, just as they probably should have done many years ago.