When President Obama first let it be known that he had decided to unleash war — oops, sorry, I mean “a campaign” — against ISIS, I had two main concerns. My first worry was mission creep, which is what happens when the U.S. commits to a small war that slowly balloons into a big one; like when a few hundred “advisors” to Vietnam turned into hundreds of thousands of soldiers. And my second worry concerned the further normalization of the war on terror, as two successive presidents defend and embrace a global struggle without end.
In my worst-case scenario, some catalyzing event, like the death of an American pilot or an ISIS attack on U.S. interests, would galvanize the public into supporting a more comprehensive strategy, one that featured the deployment of American troops. Told by their political leaders not only that ISIS was an existential threat, but that the U.S. military was capable of destroying it if it really wanted, voters would gravitate toward pundits and politicians who told them a quick and decisive victory was attainable, if only Washington would truly commit. Voters would agree, and suddenly we’d have to experience what a quagmire in the Middle East is like all over again. [Read more]
– http://wp.me/p4sUqu-IC – Michael’s Blog