As President Obama explained his
plan of action regarding ISIL to the America public, it became readily apparent
that the United States’ problem with the terrorist group was much larger than
the general populous realized, so much so that there are now growing concerns
and debate about exactly how involved the US army needs to be, rather than
assuming we would steer clear of the conflict, like many hoped we would. Now, it is clear that, regardless of how war
wary our nation has become, the US will be intervening, and that the door to
conflict, past the air strikes that are already occurring, is left open. Since
it is all but certain that America is going to play a role in this conflict,
the question becomes about how, rather than if, we partake in it.
In his article, To
Defeat the Islamic State, Follow the Money, Howard J. Shatz explores the
financial side of ISIL, and begins to explain how, in his opinion, the way to
defeat ISIL comes from their relatively easy to disrupt income and payment
systems. Essentially, as the vast majority of ISIL’s income is a result of oil
and oil smuggling, Shatz implies that bombing the ISIL oil tankers is an easy
way to start to constrict their funds. This is logical, and relatively
practical, as the US is already flying the drones necessary over head, so it
goes hand in hand with the current US strategy of restricting our involvement
to fighting from above. However, where Shatz begins to stray is in the other
part of his observation. Shatz notes that the majority of ISIL expenses go to
paying its members, both for the member and for each of his dependents, and
that should a member be captured or killed, the payments are to continue to the
members dependent. He goes on to state “if enough members are captured and
killed, however, these costs start to mount.” This seems to be insinuating that
Shatz believes we should enter combat on the ground with the sole purpose of
killing and capturing as many ISIL members as possible, with the goal of
financially strangling the group.
From a logical, and monetary
standpoint, this seems to be a strategy that would prove largely effective, the
group, though financially strong now, would not be able to handle the financial
constraint of an attack on their income and an increased fiscal responsibility
should the amount of killed and captured payouts increase exponentially.
However, logic is not going to be enough to get his plan into action. As a
nation that is, frankly, sick and tired of war, it would take overwhelming
support of those in power to convince the public that more fighting is
necessary, and maybe in a different case, Congress would rise up, accept that
challenge, and will the people to support the cause, and to crush the threat.
But, that is not going happen now. Ultimately, in a year where so many seats
are up for re-election, no Congressman in his right mind is going to stick his
neck out and risk losing the support he needs to keep his seat. Theoretically,
of course, those in Congress could wait until after the elections to make their
voices heard, but that will be too late, the time for action will have passed.
Ultimately, that this threat is coming now makes for a state of turbulence and
indecision that will most likely lead to inaction, presumably prolonging a
conflict that could end rather quickly, assuming logical course of action is
followed, and that those in Congress stick their necks out and try to get the
people to rally behind them, but because of the nature of the elections, and
their fear to lose their seats, it seems more likely than not that we sit idly,
when an apparently clear solution is right in font of us.
Shatz, Howard J. “To Defeat the Islamic State, Follow the
Money” Politco.com.
September 10, 2014. Accessed September 10, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment