ISIS: What Obama and the U. S.Must Not Do
Whatever President Obama and the United States are thinking about doing to face the threat posed by ISIS, they must make sure that they do not turn this into a contest that the U. S. must win.
The states facing the ISIS threat directly, must bear most of the burden of ensuring that ISIS does not succeed. The U. N. Security Council should also be given the responsibility to deal with the threat to international peace and security, which ISIS represents. This is exactly the kind of a threat that the U. N. Security Council is designed to handle.
By presuming violently to redraw the territorial boundaries of member states of the United Nations, ISIS represents the exact threat that the United Nations and the U. N. Security Council are set up to tackle. They must live up to their obligations. The United States should not take over the function and the obligation of the United Nations, in this case.
President Obama's current tactics and strategy are just perfect, for dealing with this situation.
We might note that most of the states directly threatened by ISIS, have the population, and the money to fund a combined, or a set of unilateral national military operations against ISIS.
Here is a sample of the relevant statistics from the World Bank, on some of the states in question--
Saudi Arabia: Population 28.83 million; GDP $745.3 billion (2013 figures)
Kuwait: Population 3.369 million (2013 figures); GDP $183.2 billion (2012 figures)
Qatar: Population 2.169 million; GDP $202.5 billion (2013 figures)
Iraq: Population 33.42 million; GDP $222.9 billion (2013 figures)
Syria: Population 22.85; GDP $73.67 billion (2012 figures)
There is no compelling reason, why the United States should take over responsibility for the security of these states, none of which pays taxes to the U.S. treasury. They must either put up the forces that they need, to defend their territories and their people or face the dire consequences.
The constant argument that unless the United States takes over the security of these kinds of states, another 9/11-type attack on the United States might be expected, does not have much credence, if critically analyzed. For instance, there was never such an attack on the United States before 2001.
The only other attack on the United States, which might be considered to be similar was the attack on Washington, by the British Army in 1814. During that attack, the British army set fire to the White House. Thus, the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaida were a rare event, which should not be used, to gauge the possibility or probability of future events.
Indeed, with all of the actions and programs that the United States has put in place since the 9/11 attacks, the probability that a similar attack against the U.S. homeland will be successfully launched is now very small.
Future threats and attacks of a similar scale are more likely to be launched against American interests overseas. Even if such attacks are successfully carried out, they will probably not have the same kinds of significant effects on the U.S. homeland, which the 9/11 attacks had.
