Re: ISIS…is it really that dangerous and sophisticated?
He had to say that. Otherwise, he would be accused of siding with a particular sect in a very polarized region.
In reality, the American mandate will probably be limited to Iraq. Though they had ceased operations in Iraq, the Americans are very much at fault for leaving the Iraqi Army in a state that it was unable to defend itself. The china shop rule still applies, (you broke it, you bought it), though neither Republican or Dems will admit to it. So in a sense, they had to hype up the atrocities in Iraq to make an alternate case for intervention. Truth is, there are bigger catastrophes around the world…oddly enough some of the bigger ones involve Sunni Muslims. Syria…the Rohingya…and so on. The lack of American interest in those admits to a simple truth: intervention is not about human concern. It really is about fixing a problem of American origin. If Obama is true to his word…we would expect regime change in Syria quite soon and action against Burma. Don’t hold your breath.
I just wish they told the truth…it’s far more respectable than the epic and fantastical language used in the speech which will only invite accusations of hypocrisy.
So in short I think he had to use that sort of neutral language, but does not mean what he said.