2:03 P.M.--I agree to write the story. Start sending Facebook messages to members of the Campus Republicans asking for reactions; and start researching for Obama's speech and ISIS.
2:07 P.M.--Vice President of Wittenberg Republicans sends an articulate, coherent response. Score.
After months of inaction, it is welcome news to see that President Obama has a "strategy" to respond to ISIS and the existential threat they pose to thousands of people across Iraq and Syria. However, at this point, the strategy is not clear, is not refined, has no definite goal, and no exit strategy. I look forward to seeing exactly how his plan is different than the wars in the Middle East that he campaigned so feverishly against in 2008 and 2012.
2:21 P.M.--I have my lead and nut-graf done. Here:
Last
Wednesday night, President Barack Obama delivered a speech in which he suggested
that “one of the greatest threats” to the United States is ISIS, and argued
that the United States and its allies should work to “erode” and “destroy” the
group.
The speech
came after Islamic State in Iraq [ISIS] — also known as ISIL and IS — published
a video on September 2 of a self-proclaimed member of ISIS beheading American
journalist Steven Sotloff. This was the second of such videos released in the
last month, the first of which was released on August 20, showing the beheading
of 40-year-old American freelance journalist James Foley.
2:33 P.M.--Student who is involved with 'Ready for Hillay '16 messages me back, and is willing to send a response in soon. [Soon needs to be sooner.]
**Also worth noting: as I'm mineing the internet for reactions and info., my computer is freezing and crashing. What a piece of shit.**
2:59 P.M.--Just messaged an officer with the Wittenberg Student Peace Alliance. Hope she responds; seems like an important perspective--I mean, the story is about war.
3:11 P.M.--Another student has responded. Huray. Here it is:
"i am hesitant to support the President's stance on containing ISIS. The concept of limited engagement sounds to me like a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan are in the making. The threat may be real but it continues a precedent of ongoing warfare that can lead the country down a dangerous path in terms of foreign policy. If ISIS is such a threat to the United States I feel the whole might of the military should be thrown at them. Otherwise, limited engagement seems to not have worked out well historically. A perpetual state of war is not conducive to liberty."
3:33 P.M.--Peace Alliance student has messaged me back with a nice response that counters the others. Once again, huray:
"I am very conflicted on this issue of the Islamic State because while they are doing so much wrong in killing innocent people, does that make it right to go after them? A lot of people would probably say yes with out questioning it. But to me, I know that in the minds of the leaders and followers of the Islamic State they are doing what is right. They are trying to create a better world and in that world only people that think a certain way are fit to survive. While I find that wrong, I find it hard to not understand. They are trying to create their perfect world which is exactly what Obama is trying to do by targeting them and anyone else who goes after the U.S.
Going more specifically on what Obama plans to do, I am a bit disappointed that he didn't spend more time trying to find a different solution before he targeted them as a terrorist organization and 'fueled their fire' a bit by calling them out. It seems to me that he didn't try to talk with them and use diplomacy to understand their viewpoint and get them to understand his [Obama's] viewpoint so that we could come to a mutual understanding. It appears that he skipped that step and went straight to the reaction as if that had not worked. I would be more accepting of the more violent response to IS if diplomacy had already tried and failed."
4:27 P.M.--Done. Rough, but done:
From calls to a more defined military
plan, to a plea for more diplomacy, Wittenberg students express a variety of reactions
to President Barack Obama’s strategy to address ISIS.
Last Wednesday night, President
Obama delivered a speech in which he suggested that the ISIS is “one of the
greatest threats” to the United States and its allies, and argued that the
United States and allies should work to “erode” and “destroy” the group.
The speech came after Islamic State
in Iraq [ISIS] — also known as ISIL and IS — published a video on September 2 of
a self-proclaimed member of ISIS beheading 31-year-old American journalist
Steven Sotloff. This was the second of such videos released in the last month,
the first of which was released on August 20, showing the beheading of
40-year-old American journalist James Foley. Both killings, according to ISIS,
were in retaliation to American airstrikes aimed at ISIS in Northern Iraq, which
were used by the United States to counter the group’s growing presence in Iraq.
In his 15-minute speech, President
Obama laid out a four-prong strategy to “eradicate” ISIS that included:
enhancing airstrikes against ISIS, increasing military aid to Syrian Rebels,
strengthening counterterrorism efforts domestically, and continuing to provide
humanitarian aid to innocent civilians — all in coordination with foreign allies.
Though President Obama called for unity-driven
action, the student population has shown a variety of opinions.
One student is excited to see
President Obama lay out a plan, but is skeptical of what that plan entails.
“After months of inaction, it is
welcome news to see that President Obama has a ‘strategy’ to respond to ISIS
and the existential threat they pose to thousands of people across Iraq and
Syria,” Michael Southerland ’16, Vice President of Campus Republicans, said. “However,
at this point, the strategy is not clear, is not refined, has no definite goal,
and no exit strategy.”
While one student expressed angst in
regards to the ambiguity of President Obama’s strategy, another showed worry
about the limited extent to which the President is willing to be involved. Ethan
Dunn ’15, a Political Science major and member of the College Republicans, expressed
hesitance about the President’s call for partial involvement, and argued that
“limited engagement” can “lead to a perpetual state of war,” and “has not
worked out historically,” citing Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
“The threat [of ISIS] may be real but
it continues a precedent of ongoing warfare that can lead the country down a
dangerous path in terms of foreign policy,” Dunn explained. “If ISIS is such a
threat to the United States I feel the whole might of the military should be
thrown at them.”
Beyond calls for a more defined
military approach, one student criticized President Obama for not trying to
hard enough to resolve this conflict diplomatically. Courtney Biede’ 15,
Founder and President of the Wittenberg Student Peace Alliance, said Sunday
that she wished President Obama would have used more peaceful and
“understanding” strategies before violence.
“It appears that he skipped [the
diplomacy] step and went straight to the [military] reaction,” Biede, who is
majoring in International Studies with a concentration in Diplomacy, said. “I
am a bit disappointed that he didn't spend more time trying to find a different
solution before he targeted them as a terrorist organization and 'fueled their fire'
a bit by calling them out.”
Although these students expressed different
shades of reactions, all the perspectives shared one sentiment: an underlying
skepticism for President Obama’s plan.
4:40 P.M.--Has been uploaded to WordPress. Look for it on Wednesday! 
No comments:
Post a Comment