I believe that Boehner should have kept the House in session, Reid should have done likewise with the Senate, I realize that our President hasn’t asked for a resolution, but that doesn’t negate the need for our legislative branch to debate and examine what future concerns this course of action will have for our nation. I am war weary and apparently so is the rest of the nation, but that weariness doesn’t mean that we have to blindly accept the airstrikes as a fait accompli and not continue the conversation. I don’t know what the best course of action is and this is even after reading as much as I could find on the subject of ISIL. The most frequently asked question seems to be “Did our actions give rise to ISIL?” I think the answer is two fold: while I believe that our horrible mistake that was the Iraq war 2003 is a contributory factor in the instability of the region, there are other historical components to the rise of ISIL. The House of Saud follows a branch of Islam called Wasabism, that branch dates to the 1800’s when Wahab met the leader of the tribe of Saud and conquered a region that is what ISIL stands for: Iraq and the Levant; that is until the Ottoman Empire drove them back and put them down. Fast forward to the early 20th century and we have the French and the British who with the Sykes-Picot agreement, carved the Middle East into neat and proper nation states, regardless of religious or ethnic considerations. We entered the picture definitively during the 1950’s and we haven’t left. The one gaping hole in every conversation which makes me distrust this military incursion is the fact that no one is being honest about OIL’s role in this latest military intervention. No one on the right when asked “why are we going against ISIL when there are so many other regions that are beset by horrific violence and that the experts don’t see ISIL as a serious threat to us here in the U.S” answers satisfactorily or honestly. Our thirst for fossil fuel will be our undoing.
read the article: