If ISIS was ‘JV,’ then the US analysis of them was ‘little league’

Last year, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria was called “JV.” Several months ago, Yemen was called a “model” for our foreign policy. The strategy to destroy ISIS was to form a “60-nation coalition.” 

There’s more, but let me just deal with these three examples. 

{mosads}Today, one could accurately say that if ISIS was “JV,” our analysis of them was “little league.” In Yemen, we are evacuating American forces as the nation nears civil war. And the “60-nation coalition” has been rendered almost impotent. They have surrendered more ground, and whatever effective fighting force there is, it’s made up more with Iranian forces than American (or coalition) forces. 

In contrast, George W. Bush’s 34-nation coalition toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime in about a month. I know many Bush haters remain in our country; that’s OK. The point I’m making is that an effective coalition is based on desire, not verbiage. Bush had the desire, while our president today has words! 

We have seen crucifixions, beheadings, humans set afire and various attacks around the world, and now we have the addresses of military families posted as ISIS targets. Our president’s response is to still tout his hapless coalition, and negotiate a “go it alone” nuclear deal with Iran. He appears more willing to deal with Iran, a terrorist state, than with our only Middle East ally, Israel. Our president’s leadership skills would make more sense if he were the leader of “Fantasy Island” or “Gilligan’s Island.” 

We are not on a good track, folks. In the past, we have been pretty good at burying our heads in the sand. I think it very unwise that we continue that willful blindness. I also await when the Democrats in Congress recognize that they are supporting a poor, dangerous leader. Decades ago, even the Republicans knew when to walk away from one of their own (President Nixon). I await the arrival of that similar vision from Democrats. I also suspect that they will not move without a significant nudge from “we the people.” I’ve already contacted my states elected officials, and our president, asking that they muster up the desire to win! 

From Tom Tyschper, Gilbert, Ariz.

David Keating, head of the Center for Competitive Politics, is pushing for further campaign finance deregulation (“Meet the man taking aim at campaign finance regulations,” March 17). Keating has helped shape the current campaign financing climate, which is dominated by undisclosed super-PAC donors. Keating would like to decrease, or eliminate, spending limits for donors and disclosure requirements for candidates.

In an environment already saturated with special interest money, the last thing we need is Keating’s plan. Instead of supporting the deregulatory policies made possible by the Citizens United decision, we should be promoting the restorative policies proposed by the Government by the People Act. The Government by the People Act would give more voice to average voters. Donations from individuals, under $150, would be matched at a 6:1 ratio through match-fund programs. This sort of campaign finance reform has the power of amplifying the voices guaranteed to voters by the First Amendment. 

Let’s diffuse the finance-fire that threatens to squash voting power, not fan the flames.

From Nora Chellew, Portland