The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been waging genocide on Shia Muslims and religious minorities in the Middle East for months, in addition to beheading two American journalists. A plan of action is needed, but how far should the United States go? Should our nation take a head-on approach until the threat is completely eliminated, or do what is necessary to prevent ISIS from spreading and avoid another decade-long war? The Warrior debates the issue.

By Brian Hughes ’15 – Pro

The United States is the leader of the free world. ISIS is a threat to the free world. It can’t be much clearer. As a global superpower, our nation must do what it can to eliminate a threat completely, and not simply suppress ISIS with drone strikes and bombing runs. By looking at past successes of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and due to the fact that ISIS, unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan, is a potential threat worldwide, there come about definitive reasons for why it’s America’s job to lead the fight against the Islamic State.

For now, sadly, small-scale airstrikes will have to be enough to protect refugees as they escape the Islamic State’s genocide and to guard American forces currently in Iraq. America has acted with immediate force towards terror threats in the past, and those efforts have been vastly successful (contrary to popular belief). People tend to forget about the victories of the Gulf War in 1991. With the United States at the head of the international coalition, Operation Desert Storm air offensives paved the way for ground forces to roll in less than a month later. This process, Operation Desert Sabre, lasted less than a week before Iraqi forces were driven out of Kuwait with roughly 300 casualties. Executed with a roughly similar structure and more modern, precise Special Forces tactics, another North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) effort is bound to work if an offensive is launched before ISIS grows to a broader status than it is at now.

That creates more of a reason to eliminate the threat as soon as possible. More sophisticated than the monkey-bar-efficient, ragtag militia of the Iraqi “Surge” of 2007 (which, it’s worth noting, is another example of successful American-led military intervention), the new enemy is an immediate, resourceful threat, both on its homefront and ours. The Islamic State funds itself through its captured oil trade and steadily attracts more recruits daily. Some join out of fear of becoming a statistic of the genocide of religious minorities while others are even Americans and Europeans influenced by ISIS’s presence on social media and other popular culture. No longer are there messages broadcasted from a cave twice a year.

With a former offensive structure that proved its efficiency and a more intricate threat on its hands, America must live up to its role as the leader of the free world and deliver justice before it’s too late.

By Ankur Kayastha ’15 – Con

Stopping the spread of terror is the only policy that the United States should follow when considering the actions to be taken against ISIS. The last time the United States was directly involved in a foreign intervention (in Afghanistan), it ended up in an 11-year-war. The last Iraq War lasted 8 years. It is best to simply wait until ISIS becomes an immediate threat to U.S. security, because right now, putting boot-on-the-ground is not the proper move. The United States shouldn’t enter a conflict it can’t realistically fix.

First thing is first, we don’t want any more lives lost to useless warfare, like in the Iraq War. There were absolutely no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) there, and also Saddam Hussein was not tied to any terrorist organization. To fight terrorism is one thing, but to directly involve ourselves into a conflict taking place in the Middle East is folly. Sure, the United States is a world superpower, but it should not abuse that role. Should ISIS come to the homefront, it is completely understandable to fight fire with fire. But by historical precedent, the United States’ expertise does not lie in entering countries and leaving them politically intact. It is time to stay on the sidelines when it comes to Middle Eastern conflicts, probably because it would make things worse to get involved.

Of course the thousands of people slaughtered by ISIS should be avenged, but through a global coalition rather than the United States just sending the bulk of needed troops. Fully eliminating ISIS would not be as simple as taking out Saddam Hussein, or suppressing Taliban terrorist threats in Afghanistan. ISIS contains a 31,000-manned army with many soldiers that survived the harshest warfare, and ultimately evolved into ruthless, heartless war machines. Not only are Syrian extremist rebels controlled by ISIS and their Sunni-based semi-empire, but ISIS has also recruited former Iraqi commanders from Hussein’s army. The fight would drag on, and would not end as cleanly or as efficiently as we would like.

To contain ISIS and prevent it from attacking Europe and the United States should be the main concern. Use of drones and airstrikes may not be as effective as full military force, but the targeting and elimination of ISIS leaders can prove vital to taking down ISIS as a whole. The process will be long, but at least a direct war can be avoided and ISIS contained, along with the suppression of the threat it poses.