http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-special-operations-forces/
The above article discusses how Barack Obama has authorized for troops to be sent to Syria to fight ISIS. The troops will advise and assist rebel forces who are fighting ISIS. This will be the most significant escalation of US troops for ISIS to date. There has been talk that the small ops would not be sufficient but Josh Earnest, the secretary of press, has rejected those claims. He argued that anywhere where Us troops are deployed, they are a force multiplier. There has also been backlash from many Republican candidates on Obama's decision to employ troops to Syria.
The backlash that Obama has been receiving reminds me of Machiavelli's idea of whether rulers should value the idea of love or fear. He argues that rulers should rather be feared than loved if it comes down to making beneficial decisions for their citizens. I do not know too much about the problem in Syria(which I am working on educating myself about) but I do believe in this idea that rulers should make decisions that others may fear or think is wrong if it may be beneficial The only thing I do not like about this idea is that this makes the assumption that the ruler in charge knows everything and what is right. I think this idea is wrong because everyone in charge does not necessarily know everything or make the right decisions. Everyone can be critiqued. WHat do you guys think?
Briona,
ReplyDeleteInteresting point. What do you think that Obama might have wrong? Is there something systemic or is it something unique to him?
I agree that Obama should listen to the critique of the citizens, especially if a large number of them are opposed to his actions in sending more troops. Even if Obama thinks that it is best to send troops to assist fighting ISIS, he should not ignore the public's opinion. As of right now, there is no way for us to know whether the benefits of sending troops will outweigh the costs, although I do think that it is important to look at past examples of what happened when the US sent soldiers overseas to the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that Obama needs to hear the concerns of the people but that doesn't necessarily mean he needs to adhere to them. He is in the position of ultimate power as president so even though people might object to his decision he doesn't have to follow it if he thinks what he wants is better for the country. Machiavelli thinks that a person in power must have a different set of morals/ethics than any other man and I think Obama's decision to send troops is a good example of that. Yes it may not be morally right to send troops but wartime or time of conflict in general call for a completely different set of morals. But I think it would be interesting to think about whether Machiavelli would think Obama would be showing more or less power if he considered the public's opinion because Machiavelli describes power as the ability to do what one wants.
ReplyDeleteI think for a leader to retain power they ultimately need to be supported by the people, this is especially true in our democratic society where we vote on our leaders. If a leader always goes against the wishes of the people he will soon be un-liked and then kicked out, it may take a while, but it usually does happen eventually. Obama may be okay to send troop in this time without the support of the people, but after a while people will be pissed off and want say in what happens. Sometimes a leader needs to make a quick executive decision to get things done, but eventually be will be upset if it happens frequently and speak out against the leader and create change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that rulers need to be able to make the decisions that no one else can. On that note however I believe that those in charge need to be educated about all sides of the topic (in this instance Syria and ISIS) in order to make the best decision for their people. Many people may not like the final decision because it is not what they would do this might be because they do not have the same information that the ruler does. Also I personally believe that the republicans have always been very against anything Obama does, and now with elections coming up they are trying to make democrats look bad so that the republican candidate will win. I think when it comes to making a decision a ruler must put aside any personal feelings or ulterior motives and do what is best for their people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Sammy and Briona, Although we elected Obama as our president, he does not know everything that is best for our country. When you talk about Rulers making decisions based on what others fear I agree, however your point about rulers who rule with fear thinking that they know whats best is true. Erika I completely agree with you when you say that "when it comes to making a decision a ruler must put aside any personal feelings or ulterior motives and do what is best for their people." It is not a rulers job to be biased in their decisions.It is up to the rulers that we elect to help put forth our best foot forward, and to listen to the people and not their selfish beliefs.I dont believe that Machiavelli would support what Obama does because he believes in doing what one wants, and that is not what Obama stands for.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anchal and Sammy on two fact that 1). We do not know whether this decision will be beneficial yet and 2) that Obama doesn't stand for just doing what he wants to do and rather is trying to make decisions that he feels necessary for the betterment of society as a whole. I understand that this is all opinion based as well as far as number two goes. However, I believe one can only be proved through time. For instance when Bush made the same decision to send troops to Iraq, the opinion to do so was mixed. As time went on many began to feel as if Bush made the wrong decision and his decision held much conspiracy. Machiavelli does believe that sometimes rulers have to make unpopular decisions and citizens won't see the benefits of it until later on. It seems that ruler is only valued in the end if their unpopular decision actually is beneficial in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anchal and Sammy on two fact that 1). We do not know whether this decision will be beneficial yet and 2) that Obama doesn't stand for just doing what he wants to do and rather is trying to make decisions that he feels necessary for the betterment of society as a whole. I understand that this is all opinion based as well as far as number two goes. However, I believe one can only be proved through time. For instance when Bush made the same decision to send troops to Iraq, the opinion to do so was mixed. As time went on many began to feel as if Bush made the wrong decision and his decision held much conspiracy. Machiavelli does believe that sometimes rulers have to make unpopular decisions and citizens won't see the benefits of it until later on. It seems that ruler is only valued in the end if their unpopular decision actually is beneficial in the end.
ReplyDelete