Reflection: Obama's speech referring to ISIS

Previously I wrote about the United States’ obligation to intervene in the matters of the Middle East, seeing as they had direct involvement in the creation of these terrorists groups. President Obama, in his speech, has declared war on the Islamic State (which apparently is neither Islamic or a state), and has done this with the alleged support of the Iraqi government. This point, at least, coincides with what to me appeared to be one of the most important factors to be considered: that the countries where ISIS is actually spreading have an active participation when it comes to planning and deciding on when it's appropriate to use airstrikes. This is the case in Iraq, but the US' relationship with Syria is drastically different. 

This is what stood out to me the most. Obama's words make sense, why give weaponry to a government you do not trust? It is logical that the US government would refuse to work with Assad's regime, but financing the opposition while at the same time trying to tackle a terrorist group that's quickly spreading makes the chore even harder, not to add slightly reminiscent of the latin american dictatorships. Clearly there is no easy way to deal with ISIS, particularly in Syria, and it would appear that the government of the United States has chosen to tackle to problematic situations at the same time rather than choosing to ally with the lesser of two evils. 
Obama explicitly says that he will not hesitate to take action in Syria, but any attack should be considered carefully and in depth, since bombing Syrian land without their consent could mean creating new enemies for the United States. Unmeasured violence can only lead to more violence, which is why those involved in the conflicts of the Middle East should perhaps consider looking past their country's personal interests and think about what is best for everyone.

Responsibilities of having children

Children, whenever there seems to be trouble, turn to their parents for help. A hug from Mommy can scare away any nightmares, can assure hat everything will be alright and nothing is really worth worrying. Although, this need for safety burdens the parents, it is up to them to protect their child, to answer questions they might not always have an answer for, but above all stay calm, because when a problem is big enough to worry Daddy, things are really going wrong. This is presented in "Incarnations of Burned Children" by David Foster Wallace. A toddler is accidentally burned with boiling water and the Daddy moves around frantically trying to help its child while the Mommy is useless and only manages to pray. In the end it is unsure whether the baby dies or not, but one thing is clear, the parents failed their most important chore: assuring their child's wellbeing. It's not that they were completely reckless parents, it was a mere distraction, a few seconds looking away. The real responsibility comes in after the accident, when the Daddy have to be brave, ignore the screams and act efficiently, because Daddy's here and nothing truly bad can happen if he is, right? Regardless of how responsible Daddy could've been, sometimes things happen that just can't be handled or understood. This is why the Daddy would later be mad at himself for wanting to smoke a cigarette.
Perhaps his momentary distraction while trying to help his child is the only explanation he can offer for the death of his child, and having someone or something to blame makes dealing with the guilt easier.

"Hills Like White Elephants" written by Ernest Hemingway, presents another type of responsibility: choosing whether or not to bring a child into the world. The "American" and a girl sit at a train station in Spain, sipping on cold beer and awkwardly commenting the setting, the hills, according to the girl, look like white elephants. The American says that if she simply goes through with the operation, things will go back to the way they were before, they would be happy and unworried, they would have no responsibilities. The girl, though, is unsure, choosing to abort a baby is a huge decision to make, not to be taken lightly. In a way, both characters present opposite poles, the American rushes the decision and takes the easy way out while the girl ponders on the idea a lot more, maybe the course to take is to assume responsibility for her actions and keep the child, despite the fact that the American argues that an abortion would be the wisest choice. Nevertheless, there seems to be a certain submissiveness in the girl that overpowers her sense of responsibility and it would appear that the final decision won't be made by her. Clearly there are other factors to be taken into consideration, judging by the relationship the characters have it's safe to assume that they are close, but probably not socially accepted and maybe even an affair, which would add a sense of social responsibility (what is proper) and explain why the American is so anxious to have the operation done.

Both stories present two types of responsibility, in the first it's about taking care of a child and ensuring its safety, while in the second it's about deciding wether or not it is a good idea to have a child at all, taking into consideration all the economic and social implications. What's also interesting is the way women are portrayed in both stories. In both, women are shown as submissive and slightly less competent than their male counterparts, even though they share the same responsibilities. Parenthood is a complex matter, starting from the moment the baby is conceived to actually taking care of the child, and, in a way, these two stories show different kinds of responsibilities and conflicts that may appear through the different stages.

The Islamic State

The Islamic State is a Muslim extremist group that has rapidly spread through Iraq and Syria taking over a series of cities and imposing a law system called Sharia, characterized by its violent and somewhat archaic punishments. This, for obvious reasons, has raised international alarm because of ISIS' extremist views and violent ways. It is a highly complex problem, with varied causes such as religion, politics, and others. The countries fighting this attempt to re-establish a muslim caliphate are far from having a stable government and are already busy struggling with other internal quarrels. What should be done if those under attack do not have the means to defend themselves properly? It seems logical that someone needs to help.
The United States have had a history of getting involved in foreign politics, there was the dictatorships set up in Latin America, and more recently another series of interventions in the Middle East. Of course these interventions have also caused a whole new series of problems, one of which is the rise and spread of the Islamic State (Brumfield, Ben). For this reason, as reluctant as everyone is to see the US once again meddling in external affairs, it is their responsibility to at the very least help eliminate the threat that ISIS represents.
Of course, this help doesn't have to (and shouldn't be) carried out in the same way it has before. Syria has already warned Obama's government that any drone attacks performed without previous consent from Damascus will be taken as an aggression to the state, rather than directed to the jihadists (Lucas, Ryan). This exemplifies the attitude that the United States has adopted when dealing with potential threats to their own country, the attitude of an overprotective parent. While it is clear that governments in the middle east are currently undergoing a lot of conflict, it is not up to the US government to impose its views and practices on another country. After the cuban missile crisis in 1962, a series of democratically elected socialists governments in Latin America where thrown down (helped by the US) and replaced by dictatorships, which more often than not resulted in long years of suffering and fear for those living in said countries. Clearly this is not the way to follow in the Middle East. There is already enough suffering and it would only help the US' interests to continue this suffering but with a cooperating government.
Any kind of aid, coming from the United States or any other countries, should be coordinated beforehand with the countries being helped, even if these have opposing ideologies and a history of conflict, like in the case of Syria (Hearst, David). These differences can be dealt with later on, once the pressing problem (expansion of the Islamic State) is solved. It is unacceptable that any country launches any sort of military aid attack in another country without first communicating with the authorities of the land being bombed, even if the intention is to eradicate  an extremist group such as the Islamic State. 
It seems impossible at these moments to think of peace when journalists are being murdered on tape and nine year olds dream about killing "infidels" and establishing a caliphate all over the Middle East and possibly the world. Ideally, western countries, aside from contributing with military aid, will serve as guides for countries just coming out of decades of constant war. Hopefully, they will be more like an older sibling rather than an imposing father. In the end, the final goal is to help create functional governments, governments with religious tolerance, where minorities are respected and represented so that there is no need for extremist movements. History has proved that poor governments inevitably will lead to violence, and the only way to safeguard against the rise of new groups similar to the Islamic State is to have efficient authorities who work for the people, not for themselves.

Sources:
Brumfield, Ben. Why does the U.S. intervene militarily in Iraq but not in Syria?
Hearst, David. Islamic State: the monster Western intervention created
Lucas, Ryan. Syria warns Obama against intervention over Islamic State