Oppose the US direct air force military intervention against ISIS and in the Middle East.

In August, the United States assembled an international coalition to conduct a campaign of air strikes on ISIS positions in Iraq. Then, in October, the coalition expanded the intervention into Syria. American progressives have been relatively uniform in opposing the intervention against ISIS.

However, Hillary says,” a more effective coalition air campaign is necessary and we should be honest about the fact that to be successful, airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS.” Democracies favor remote strike weapons, as launched aircraft, because they offer great destruction at the target without necessary ground involvement. Personnel on the ground could be captured, wounded, and killed by a simple technology that cannot harm aircraft.

And ironically, an Islamic State is more exposed than the non-state actors from which ISIS was formed. ISIS is occupying and governing territory, within a largely flat, not obscured natural environment, without significant air or water transport, moving between cities, sometimes with captured military trunks and its transporters, which are the easiest weapons to observe from the air.

However, the air strategy has been chosen not for its effectiveness in defeating ISIS, but for its effectiveness in reducing the exposure of friendly personnel, while still offering spectacular images of destruction. The trouble with an air campaign is that aircraft alone cannot flush out ground forces. Jihadi insurgents normally travel in civilian vehicles, which are effectively indistinguishable from collateral traffic, unless ground intelligence has identified the particular vehicle in which a particular target person is travelling at a particular time. If air campaigners want to avoid these collateral risks, then they must focus on large assets in barren areas, such as oil derricks in the desert. This is effectively the current counter of ISIS strategy. But it is the least efficient and lease decisive strategy. Because the ISIS is not dependent on heavy industry or urban infrastructure. And it does not expose friendly personnel on the ground until a air force pilot is shot down in enemy territory. This was the terrible fate of the Jordan whom ISIS captured in December and burnt to death. In response to his capture, the United Arab Emirates had stopped air strikes pending some reassurance that the coalition’s capacity for rescuing downed him could be improved. In retaliation for this death, United Arab Emirates joined in. Egypt has stepped up its strikes in Libya, in response to ISIS killing Egyptian nationals on the ground there, and has accepted inevitable criticism of the high collateral casualties. Retaliation is not a new or an effective military strategy – it just offers domestic political advantages over doing nothing. The retaliatory motivations of the latest air strikes, and the counter-productive collateral harm, increase the net disadvantages. Therefore, I oppose the US direct air force military intervention against ISIS and in the Middle East. 

Blog Stage Eight: Comment on a colleague's work #2

In one of my classmate’s blog posts titled “We should fight for globalclimate change,”Kyuree Kwak wrote about the good editorial essay that we should be the one who fight for global climate change for the plane. I totally agree with her opinion and human activity is primarily responsible for global climate change. However, I want to add some part about the ‘paying more tax’ on her essay.

Dramatic changes in climate, such as heavier storms and less snow, are another sign that humans are causing global climate change. As human-produced greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas. In a process known as a positive feedback loop, more warming causes more humidity which causes even more warming. Higher humidity levels also cause changes in climate. Higher temperatures from global warming are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. And another study found that global warming caused by human actions has increased extreme precipitation events by 18% across the globe, and that if temperatures continue to rise an increase of 40% can be expected. So, we are definitely responsible for the climate change.

Kyuree says, “If the government of urban countries increase taxes only to help the planet by limiting the emission of carbon, many people would gladly accept it, since it is for the benefit for everyone.” I do not agree with this part because we are already paying the carbon taxes. The fact is that American taxpayers are paying for the costs of climate change now. These costs don't hit us all at once but sporadically, in different places and at different times. They don't feel like a carbon tax, though they amount to one. Every time we use fossil fuels, we increase our tax burden, a burden that unfolds like a sequence of trap doors, just like climate change itself. Start with food: Farmers have always faced good years and bad years, but as bad years get more frequent, taxpayers pick up more and more of the tab. Crop insurance is now one of the nation's biggest and riskiest financial bulwarks against the effect of climate change on farmers, who are struggling to adapt as growing conditions shift beneath their feet. 

Rather pushing Congress to require strong action for the carbon pricing, we should bypass the pricing schemes and move to regulate emissions strictly and enact policies to phase out fossil fuels or anything that cause climate change.