“As of Dec. 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 8,573 strikes (5,639 Iraq / 2,934 Syria),” according to the U.S Department of Defense.  

The United States is utilizing a slow and steady technique on ISIS. Do not worry, we are just innocent bystanders ready to be attacked at any moment. There is nothing else that can be done. The idea of having a war with ISIS or not has already crossed people’s minds, especially President Barack Obama’s prominent mind.

Termination of this threat will be sought. In the meantime more people suffer. The United States plays a deadly game of rock, paper, scissors with Syria and Iraq; strike after strike, best 2 out of 3 continuously with no repercussions. Obama says his strategy to fight ISIS will “succeed.” His plan to cripple the Islamic State through airstrikes and assistance to local forces is making progress, the president asserted, even if the carnage on the streets of Paris seemed to belie it, according to NY Times.

I find it obscure to attack the “insensitive” extremist terrorist group with mere airstrikes. What we need is to focus on protection and safety from external and internal terrorism. I think forceful attacks will solve nothing unless we have made it clear, this is a war. According to the LA Times, Jeb Bush, the onetime Republican front-runner and former governor of Florida, said that the U.S. “should declare war” on Islamic State.

On Friday, November 13, Paris was attacked by ISIS, resulting in the deaths of over 90 people. Because of this strike, hacker group Anonymous declared war against ISIS the very same night, stated in Mirror UK News Online.

France has shown to have a stronger approach toward ISIS than the United States.“Such as France, is an attack on all,” said Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, stated in LA Times. Would France have declare war on ISIS if they were never attack? It is understandable that France seeks vengeance, however it was slightly under control before the sudden attack that shook the world. President Obama said he rejected the idea that the U.S. should take dramatic new actions in the wake of the Paris attacks just to “look tough,” according to LA Times.

If France is “tough” then United States is lenient. President Obama is taking an action, that several candidates might disagree with, but both the President and the candidates know that getting into war is something our country cannot handle currently. Sending significant numbers of ground forces into Syria would set an untenable precedent president Obama stated in NY times. A great number of troops and supplies would have to be sent to Iraq and Syria. This would continue the never ending cycle of soldiers being called into duty.

To those who believe the Unites States should not be involved in any kind of war, an alternative would be no military intervention at all, following Canada’s example of supporting while not providing combat. Canada will accord tangible equipment and ammunition to the effort of fighting ISIS, according to CNN. Australia, Great Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Turkey and Jordan are countries that will provide coalition and contributions to the war stated in CNN news.

Nevertheless, it is all about choosing our battles. President Obama wants to choose this battle carefully. Handling it in a forbearing and tactile way. He refuses to be ostentatious in his plan. If we ever do suffer from a great tragedy such as 9/11 or the Paris attack within our country again, by all means bring the weaponry, this is war.