Let’s Hope America’s Leading of the Fight against the Islamic State Can Be Done Right This Time
American President Obama made a televised speech on the eve of the anniversary of September 11, announcing that America will lead a wide coalition to expand its airstrikes against the Islamic State. Recent American diplomatic activities have focused on the building of this coalition. The U.S. State Department claimed that more than 40 countries wanted to join, and announced the names of 25 of them, most of which are “Western and Arab countries.”
The American press’ reception for the Obama speech was far less enthusiastic than its reaction to Bush’s announcement of starting the Iraq War. The New York Times and other media outlets are most concerned about how much the new war would cost. The enormous cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to have scared Americans; now they are haggling over every cent.
Some non-Western countries have expressed their own concerns. Russia, for example, suspects America’s expansion of its airstrikes on the Islamic State into Syria is an excuse to attack the Assad administration. Also, Iran and Syria may both be fighting against the Islamic State, but they both opposed Obama’s latest decision.
China has expressed its general opposition to all forms of terrorism and it believes the international community should work together against terrorism, including supporting all countries’ efforts in maintaining domestic security.
Supposedly, Obama is determined to fight against the Islamic State to the end, but a lot of people felt he “blinked,” because he voluntarily asked Congress to approve his request to expand the airstrikes, even though the decision was within his authority. In addition, the Pentagon, under his leadership, has said that the war would last at least three years. Some people have theorized that if Congress denied Obama’s request, he would be relieved.
To encourage Americans, Obama made a point to emphasize that in this unstable world, America’s leadership is a “constant.” He described America’s unparalleled control of the world, while emphasizing that America was the one who mobilized against the terrorists, who called upon the world to oppose the Russian “invasion,” who helped curb the Ebola virus, etc.
Yet one has to admit that America’s leadership and mobility have both decreased. The war has not even begun, and the press is already demanding the president to do the math. This is a far cry from when Congress approved the funds for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars first and said more would be added if necessary. America is more adamant than ever that its allies have to contribute to the war coffers — apparently wars are now fought in a stockholder system too. Yet America still wants to make the call in global issues, which is the main source of the internal conflict for America’s war strategies.
The fight against the Islamic State is a noble task for America. The problem is, in the past, when America led the world in its missions, it always put its own interests first. Not only does the start of a mission have to meet American interests, but American interests would be inserted in the middle of the process, or the mission would be finished abruptly after fulfilling American interests. For example, the Iraq War was started for a fake reason, and without a real conclusion, the American military simply withdrew. The Iraq War brought along the Islamic State, but what would happen with fighting Islamic State now? Would America be responsible toward the end? The world does not know for sure.
America’s leadership has no competition in the world right now; however, it does not mean America’s leadership is really as excellent as Obama claimed. America can be selfish, a bully and likes to tackle multiple problems with one mission, and it is becoming more and more calculating, which is why it garners less and less trust. It can be said that Moscow’s worry that America’s fight against the Islamic State would also mean beating Assad is not completely unfounded.
As a news outlet in China, we support attacking the extreme terrorist organization the Islamic State, but at the same time, our support is also cautious. China has enormous interests in the Middle East. We hope that when America is fighting this war it will not intentionally harm Chinese interests.
Because the Islamic State is extremely brutal, the hatred and forces against it are very widespread. America’s leading of the fight against the Islamic State and the scope of its front is a test of the world’s trust in America. If America thinks the front is not big enough, it should not complain but instead reflect.
The American press’ reception for the Obama speech was far less enthusiastic than its reaction to Bush’s announcement of starting the Iraq War. The New York Times and other media outlets are most concerned about how much the new war would cost. The enormous cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to have scared Americans; now they are haggling over every cent.
Some non-Western countries have expressed their own concerns. Russia, for example, suspects America’s expansion of its airstrikes on the Islamic State into Syria is an excuse to attack the Assad administration. Also, Iran and Syria may both be fighting against the Islamic State, but they both opposed Obama’s latest decision.
China has expressed its general opposition to all forms of terrorism and it believes the international community should work together against terrorism, including supporting all countries’ efforts in maintaining domestic security.
Supposedly, Obama is determined to fight against the Islamic State to the end, but a lot of people felt he “blinked,” because he voluntarily asked Congress to approve his request to expand the airstrikes, even though the decision was within his authority. In addition, the Pentagon, under his leadership, has said that the war would last at least three years. Some people have theorized that if Congress denied Obama’s request, he would be relieved.
To encourage Americans, Obama made a point to emphasize that in this unstable world, America’s leadership is a “constant.” He described America’s unparalleled control of the world, while emphasizing that America was the one who mobilized against the terrorists, who called upon the world to oppose the Russian “invasion,” who helped curb the Ebola virus, etc.
Yet one has to admit that America’s leadership and mobility have both decreased. The war has not even begun, and the press is already demanding the president to do the math. This is a far cry from when Congress approved the funds for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars first and said more would be added if necessary. America is more adamant than ever that its allies have to contribute to the war coffers — apparently wars are now fought in a stockholder system too. Yet America still wants to make the call in global issues, which is the main source of the internal conflict for America’s war strategies.
The fight against the Islamic State is a noble task for America. The problem is, in the past, when America led the world in its missions, it always put its own interests first. Not only does the start of a mission have to meet American interests, but American interests would be inserted in the middle of the process, or the mission would be finished abruptly after fulfilling American interests. For example, the Iraq War was started for a fake reason, and without a real conclusion, the American military simply withdrew. The Iraq War brought along the Islamic State, but what would happen with fighting Islamic State now? Would America be responsible toward the end? The world does not know for sure.
America’s leadership has no competition in the world right now; however, it does not mean America’s leadership is really as excellent as Obama claimed. America can be selfish, a bully and likes to tackle multiple problems with one mission, and it is becoming more and more calculating, which is why it garners less and less trust. It can be said that Moscow’s worry that America’s fight against the Islamic State would also mean beating Assad is not completely unfounded.
As a news outlet in China, we support attacking the extreme terrorist organization the Islamic State, but at the same time, our support is also cautious. China has enormous interests in the Middle East. We hope that when America is fighting this war it will not intentionally harm Chinese interests.
Because the Islamic State is extremely brutal, the hatred and forces against it are very widespread. America’s leading of the fight against the Islamic State and the scope of its front is a test of the world’s trust in America. If America thinks the front is not big enough, it should not complain but instead reflect.