OPINION
September 26, 2014
BY CARLTON
SKINNER
Staff Writer
Obama s plan to deal with
ISIS sounds nice in theory
On Wednesday, Sept. 10, President Barack Obama gave a speech
on his plans to eradicate the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and
S5rria.
The presidents plan is a nice idea. For many Americans, it was
probably comforting to hear the head of the
coimtry promise to keep American ground
troops out of Iraq. However, this strategy relies
too heavily on speculation to know for sure if it
will work.
The plan has four specific parts, which are
designed to function together to achieve results.
The first part of the plan will involve
coordinated airstrikes against targeted ISIS
locations. In his address to the nation, the
president told viewers that the U.S. would be
expanding beyond protecting its own people
and humanitarian missions and working closely
with the Iraqi government to hit ISIS targets
from the skies while Iraqi forces move against
them on the groimd.
This stands out as a red flag, because the United States military
has intelligence showing that ISIS has now embedded itself in
tightly padced cities, using civilians as shields, according to the
Clarion Project.
This will make airstrikes difficult, if not impossible. Any airstrikes
that go as planned could potentially hit and kill innocents. Casualties
like this are perfect fodder for the ISIS propaganda machine, which
will use them as opportunities to recruit new members.
The second part of the plan will entail providing training and
support for Iraqi troops and security forces, as well as Syrian
moderate rebels and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
This is the part of the plan that seems to make the most sense. In
theory, the idea of training fighters in the Middle East to combat the
spread of ISIS makes sense, as ultimately they will be the ones left
behind to protect Iraq and Syria.
"It worked in Afghanisfcuri,'' said Robert Dimcari, assistant
professor of political science. "We trained and armed the Northern
Alliance, provided air coverage and had no troop>s on the ground."
There are two questions that need to be asked though.
First, who is going to foot the bill? President Obama said that a
coalition of 40 nations has expressed support in the fight against
ISIS, but war is expensive, and we've only received help from a few
of those places.
Failing that, who will it be? In the past, the American taxpayers
have been the ones to fund wartime operations.
Secondly, do we really think that providing arms for another
group we barely imderstand is a good idea?
"Arming one militant group against another is not what you
want to do," said senior philosophy and political science major M.J.
al Rashidi. 'The Kurds have their own problems with the Sunnis
and arming them could start a dvil war."
The third aspect of the plan relies on America's considerable
counter-terrorism and surveillance abilities. The U.S. will continue
to monitor the activities of the Jihadist group and apprise the
authorities in the Middle East of all activity.
However, what exactly agencies like the National Security Agency
will be looking for has not been made clear and feels like an excuse
to widen the government's already substantial powers to monitor
the American people.
The fourth and final aspect of the presidents plan is humanitarian
aid. The U.S. will continue to provide help to people and conununities
displaced by the spread of ISIS across the Middle East. This is the
only aspect of the plan that seems ready for deployment without
any further development.
"We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their
ancient homelands," said Obama in the closing remarks of the
address.
In a perfect world, the president's plan sounds absolutely viable.
However, a large portion of that plan is wishful thinking and
speculation. It doesn't seem wise to enter into a conflict we only
think we know how to win.
No to fast lanes, yes to net neutrality
BY LILY LOU
Staff Writer
' Dd yoti prefer Netflix:or Hulu Plus? Well> if you have ’
Comcast you may be better off using Netflix.
In February, Netflix paid Comcast to speed up
its service. This happened after a federal appeals
court eliminated the Federal
Communication Commission's
authority to establish net neutrality
rules.
"At its core, net neutrality is an
idea about fairness," said Brian
Fung, a technology reporter at
the Washington Post in a phone
interview with The Guilfordian.
"It's the idea that all Internet traffic
should be treated equally no matter
here it's coming from or where it's
going to."
Under net neutrality rules,
companies like Netflix could not
pay Internet service providers to speed up service.
Now, ISPs have the ability to block or slow down
websites.
Netflix customers may be happier with their faster
service, but this deal with Comcast has set a precedent
that favors large corporations.
Deals such as the one between Netflix and Comcast
are disadvantageous to smaller companies and
startups, since small companies do not have the same
resources to pay for faster access as large companies do.
The ending of net neutrality could restrict the
expression of many opinions, induding both minority
opinions and those in disagreement with ISPs.
"The Internet is really a 21st century town square
of democracy," said Todd O'Boyle '04, the program
director for Common Cause's Media and Democracy
Reform Initiative. "It's the way that voters inform
themselves. It's the way that advocates organize
themselves and it's the way that everyday dtizens
debate the issues online. We need net neutrality to
preserve the democracy online."
The only people who seem to benefit from the
ruling restricting net neutrality are the ISPs and their
shareholders. ISPs are already making a 97 percent
margin on Internet services, according to Craig Moffet,
an analyst at the Wall Street firm Bernstein Research,
in an interview with the MIT Technology Review.
According to The New York Times, in 80 percent of
the United States, people only have a choice of one ISP,
which is comparable to a monopoly.
"The Internet should be free and open to any and
everything and not be controlled by ISPs, espedally if
the ISPs have the infrastructure to support the network
traffic," said IT&S network engineer & Madntosh
spedalist Brian McCaffrey.
The FCC allowed the public to comment on net
neutrality rules and received over 3.7 million responses,
mostly in favor of net neutrality. Though the comments
are now closed, people can still protest net neutrality
by contacting the FCC and their local congressmen and
congresswomen about their views on net neutrality.
"The only way to ensure net neutrality is for
the FCC to do redassification of broadband as a
telecommunications service, which would allow the
FCC to prohibit blocking or discrimination online,"
said O'Boyle.
Net neutrality is important for protecting our
freedoms on the web and continuing innovation. Large
sites like Facebook may not have grown to what they
are today without net neutrality and activism through
sodal media may have never occurred.
Speak out and protect net neutrality instead of taking
it for granted.
Ihis Week's
GuiHord Coll^ should join Palestine’s BE^ movement
It must be noted that we approach
this topic with hesitation.
The area between Jordan and
the Mediterranean contains many
different narratives, many of which
conflict.
However, based on our research,
we urge Guilford College to question
how our investments support the
Israeli govemmenti s polides.
We cannot deny that there have
been acts of violence on both
sides. Generations of Israelis have
grown up with rocket shelters
under their homes to protect
against Hamas and Hezbollah's
rockets, while generations of
Palestinians have grown up with
armed soldiers, te^ gas and tanks
outside their front door. . .s..
« t * « * »
»«»•*»« •
Yet it would be a mistake to rest
on the general platitude of "both
sides have done wrong, now we just
want peace for everyone." Of course
we want peace. The American
people want peace, the Palestinian
people want peace, the Israeli people
want peace. The question is, do
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his
government want peace?
Israel should come under
particular scrutiny. They control
the borders of not only their own
state but the West Bank and most of
Gaza as well, and directly control 60
percent of the West Bank.
Moreover, they are an ally of the
United States and receive $3 billion
in military aid from us every year.
We-are tied to them diplomatically
and economically. Therefore, we are
partially culpable for Israel's action.
How, then, has Israel acted in the
past year?
Netanyahu's government
has received much criticism
internationally for its recent nulitaiy
operations in Gaza. According to
Israeli estimates, around 50 percent
of the casualties in the recent
campaign in Gaza were civilians,
while tile U.N. puts the number
closer to 70 percent.
Qvilian casualties, though, are
not the only issue over which Israel
has received criticism recently. As
recently as the first of September,
Israel declared almost 1,000 new
acres of the West Bank to be state
land, and earlier this year, peace
talks groimd to a halt in part due
to Israel's insistence on keeping
their West Bank settlements and
continuing to build more.
We cannot, and do not, condone
anti-Semitism, racism or terrorism.
We also cannot support the Israeli
government imtil they begin
following the values of human rights
they claim to uphold.
In 2005, the Palestinian Qvil
Society called for international
support in a Boycott, Divestment
and Sanctions mc^ement against
Israel "until it complies with
International Law and universal
principles of human rights."
Coimtries, universities and religious
institutions all over the world have
participated in the BDS call.
The Friends Fiduciary
Corporation divested from Hewlett-
Packard and Veolia in 2012, just two
of the companies profiting off of the
Israeli occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza.
As a college founded in Quaker
values, we call for Guilford College
and the community to consider
carefully how our investments and
votes support the policies of Israel.
Refleqing Guilford College's core
Quaker values, the topic and content
OF THIS Staff Editorial was chosen
THROUGH CONSENSUS OF 13 EDITORS
AND ONE FACULTY ADVISOR OF ThE
Guilfordian’s Editorial Board.