Several days ago, President Barack Obama appeared in an interview with CBS News and admitted that the White House has underestimated what was happening in Syria for months.
While many individuals criticized the incompetence of American intelligence in the Middle East for not noticing when ISIL was amassing immense military power, The New York Times revealed that intelligence agencies actually did report to the White House about the growing threat of Sunni extremists in Syria.
It is the senior American intelligence official’s argument that “They (White House) were preoccupied with other crises,” and “this just wasn’t a big priority.”
Despite all of this, the White House denied that the growing threat in Syria was one of the priorities on their agenda, it is clear that the White House failed to provide a timely response last month when ISIL began its treacherous march through northern Iraq and Syria.
Albeit there are more important questions that require immediate response from the experts in the field and scholars in academia, I would like to ask a question since many pundits are quick to blame others in this time of pandemonium. Would people have criticized the White House if they took the intelligence agencies’ report seriously and conducted timely military action in Syria? I do think they would have.
The White House is always the scapegoat for many of the things that go wrong in this country. If the White House conducted the immediate response on the threats from ISIL, it would have been at a time when ISIL’s threat was not at the heightened level it is today. Therefore it would not be apparent to the civilian population here in the United States.
We would not have witnessed the genocide of innocent Muslims who denied following the ways of Sunni extremists, we would not have witnessed 70,000 Kurds running away to Turkey’s territory to escape the brutality of ISIL. We would not have seen two American journalists’ throats being cut off so horribly by a masked terrorist on TV. All of this would likely not have happened and subsequently would not have created the current ISIL threat we know today.
It is common practice in every democratic nation around the world that the government and politicians become the scapegoat for nearly every unsavory event that happens within their boarders. In this case, however, the pandemonium breaking out overseas in Syria and Iraq combined with the obstruction by opposing factions here in the United States is preventing the administration from making the ‘just’ decision. No administration in this same position could possibly satisfy everybody in the nation.
Now I am not saying criticizing the administration should be stopped. I am saying that denunciating without second thought for the sole purpose of degrading the reputation of the administration should be stopped immediately.
What do you think of the criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of ISIL? Please send your feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
