Given that today is the 13th anniversary of the
September 11th bombings, I find it appropriate to write about the recent events
involving the newly exposed ISIS group. Currently the very controversial topic
being highly debated is whether or not the U.S. will launch air strikes in
Syria and Iraq. President Obama gave a speech about the hot topic Wednesday,
and his answer has only raised more controversy about the situation.
The New York Times writer,
Charlie Savage, presents both sides of the argument in his recent article on
September 10, 2014. The Obama administration announced Wednesday that "it
needed no new approval from Congress to launch an open-ended air war in both
Syria and Iraq”. They claim "the campaign is covered by the existing
authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorists attacks-that is, Al Qaeda". As expected, this statement
raises one contentious question, does the authorization to use military force,
known as the A.U.M.F., cover ISIS?
Though ISIS originated from Al Qaeda, the two
groups disputed over strategy and control. The original leader of Al Qaeda even
"excommunicated ISIS". Therefore some argue that ISIS is not included
in this authorization because, "The Islamic State was an Al Qaeda
affiliate, and it is not anymore. So technically, the A.U.M.F. would not cover
the Islamic State."
On the other hand some express that "the
authorization allows the president to determine who was involved in the 9/11
attacks." According to this piece of information, Obama could rightfully
include ISIS in the authorization. They argue that although ISIS may not be an
explicit affiliate of Al Qaeda, they do come under A.U.M.F.
Even though both sides share conflicting views of
the situation, their opinions may not matter, because Obama proclaims that he
has the sole power to the decision. However, Obama has invited Congress to
grant approval for an ISIS air strike campaign saying, "I believe we are
strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together. So I
welcome congressional…" Now the real question is will Obama listen to the
people on this one, or go with his own instinct?
This relates to the civic and community values that Ben Franklin stood
for. Franklin believed in a united American front against Britain, working
together to better America and the image of an American. If Franklin was alive
today I think he would argue against Obama having full control of the
situation. Franklin fought for representation in government, and Congress not
having a say in this popular controversy go against his stance completely.
Congress represents the people and because this issue affects many people,
Franklin would argue that the Congress's decision should be the deciding factor
and not Obama's decision alone.
By:Ashley Smialek
Ashley, you presented the argument and counterargument very well by using templates throughout your blog. Also, inserting the quotes of President Obama from his speech provided me with more background information to choose my stance on the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe way that you used both sides of the argument to keep the blog unbiased helped to keep a very interesting tone. You effectively included your own questions into the blog without using the first person. Well done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily and I liked your use of templates. Also, I like how you compared America's conflict with ISIS and Benjamin Frankiln's appropriate views on the situation. I like how you tied in Franklin's ideas to government to Obama's conflicting views. it shows how our founding fathers would be unsatisfied with our government's current situations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grace; I like the way that you kept the blog unbiased. I also agree with Emily because the use of Obama's quotes made it easier for me to create my own opinion. You did a very good job of raising both arguments and adding what you believe would be Ben Franklin's opinion makes your blog article even more interesting!
ReplyDelete