ROUND TABLE
Should the United States put boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS?
Matthew Gubenko: I think the strategy of inaction and trying to fund other rebel militants on the ground by giving them arms has proved to be an incredibly harmful strategy in that it almost single-handedly created — coupled with the void left by U.S. troops on the ground — the rise of ISIS. Now we have a bunch of rebel militants armed with U.S. weapons. I think it’s imperative that instead of funding other factions, the U.S. actually get on the ground.
Michael Ryter: I don’t doubt our military capability, and I don’t doubt that we are militarily capable of defeating and virtually eradicating ISIS. However, last time we were in Iraq and we withdrew, that almost instantly led to the destabilization of the Iraqi government, which we supported, and led to ISIS. I don’t see how that is any different this time, unless we have a more cohesive endgame strategy, and perhaps work with our allies to institute that.
Anna Kim: We can’t get into another boots on the ground war with no defined endpoint, because clearly, that ends terribly, both for us and the people that we’re ostensibly trying to protect. … You have to remember that boots on the ground means American lives. It means American citizens dying, and I think it’s rash to just say, “We have to go in with boots on the ground, because that’s what’s going to work.” So if we can in any way prevent harm to American citizens, then I think that’s the route that we have to take.
Jason Ma: I think when you’re engaging in a war, you’re always going to have people dying. You can’t just say because American people are dying, we shouldn’t be involved. Tens of thousands of people are dying every single day because of ISIS. I’m not saying that we should sacrifice American lives; I’m just simply saying that when we are weighing each single person’s life equally, we should intervene, because in doing so we are minimizing the deaths in the long term. Obviously, in the short term, if we start a full scale war against ISIS, more people are going to die, but in the long term we’re actually trying to stop ISIS and actually make the region more peaceful.
How much of a priority should combatting climate change be?
AK: Climate change should be a huge priority. It’s one of the biggest threats that we’re facing right now — not necessarily militaristically, although, it has been shown that if global warming and climate change lead to fewer resources in conflict areas, then that leads to serious conflict and drives things like terrorism and, frankly, global conflict. I think it’s one of the issues that we have to be taking very seriously, and that will affect us sooner than we think.
JM: I think it needs to be a priority, but I’m not sure how much weight we can put on it. Because I think in the past, actions have failed in the U.S. because of how polarized our country has become. We need to find the right way, an effective way that would actually be able to work in our country because the political climate right now is really divisive. And I think just talking about climate change without actually trying to find a compromise between the left and the right would not be a solution in the long term.
MG: I think there’s no overstating the importance of meaningful diplomacy, especially domestically relative to climate change. But I think a big part of that in moving things like that forward is the cultural divide here that exists in the United States, in which people systematically neglect the fact that global warming is an issue. Republicans and Democrats now are stalling diplomacy. They’re disagreeing merely for a political reason. I think it’s important that we establish an underlying education about environmental change and procedure, and just encourage public discourse and awareness.
MR: I don’t think it’s as much an issue in education. If you look at polling numbers, generally younger people are more invested in science and are far more likely to understand the importance of climate change. However, I think a large part of it is that a lot of politicians are heavily supported by the fossil fuel industry and the oil industry, especially with the rise of fracking in the U.S. and all the controversy that comes with that. Unfortunately, politicians are still so dependent on the funding and the support that they get from traditional energy industries that they’re going to be hesitant to support any kind of accord.
Should the United States enact stricter gun control legislation?
AK: I think we need strict, comprehensive gun reform. I think that’s been proven by the fact that we’ve had more mass shootings than days in the U.S. this year. This is not a problem other western countries have. I think honestly that says enough.
MG: I don’t disagree that we need more gun control, but I think it’s important where we locate our efforts. I think that we do need more universal background checks, criminal checks, and especially one bigger issue that needs to come to the forefront of this debate is mental health checks and clearances. Because a big part of these shootings is that there’s always a shooter behind the gun. If you incentivize getting rid of guns, some people will want to latch onto them regardless. You’ll radicalize those people that have the guns and want them simply for self-defense. And you’ll create a black market as we did in the prohibition, which will create gangs, violence and other organizations that can’t even be tracked at all under the government.
JM: I think by having a universal ban on guns, we’re just taking away guns from the good people. I think the bad guys will always take them no matter what. It’s like, if you’re a drug addict, even if we ban all drugs, you’re going to find them somewhere. People with training should be able to get guns. So when they are put into a situation where they have to protect themselves, or protect their families, they are capable of doing so. We’re not training everyone. We’re ensuring that when you get a gun, you have to have training.
MR: A recent FBI report said that only 3.1 percent of mass shootings are stopped by a good person — a non-law enforcement person with a gun, like a civilian shooting someone. So in practicality, that doesn’t really happen. It’s not always about training. It’s about the gun getting in the wrong hands. It’s about a kid picking up the gun and accidentally using it thinking it’s a toy. Because people don’t know how to use guns, and because it would require an extensively high amount of training, like a law enforcement level amount of training, realistically it’s unfeasible.
Matthew Gubenko: I think the strategy of inaction and trying to fund other rebel militants on the ground by giving them arms has proved to be an incredibly harmful strategy in that it almost single-handedly created — coupled with the void left by U.S. troops on the ground — the rise of ISIS. Now we have a bunch of rebel militants armed with U.S. weapons. I think it’s imperative that instead of funding other factions, the U.S. actually get on the ground.
Michael Ryter: I don’t doubt our military capability, and I don’t doubt that we are militarily capable of defeating and virtually eradicating ISIS. However, last time we were in Iraq and we withdrew, that almost instantly led to the destabilization of the Iraqi government, which we supported, and led to ISIS. I don’t see how that is any different this time, unless we have a more cohesive endgame strategy, and perhaps work with our allies to institute that.
Anna Kim: We can’t get into another boots on the ground war with no defined endpoint, because clearly, that ends terribly, both for us and the people that we’re ostensibly trying to protect. … You have to remember that boots on the ground means American lives. It means American citizens dying, and I think it’s rash to just say, “We have to go in with boots on the ground, because that’s what’s going to work.” So if we can in any way prevent harm to American citizens, then I think that’s the route that we have to take.
Jason Ma: I think when you’re engaging in a war, you’re always going to have people dying. You can’t just say because American people are dying, we shouldn’t be involved. Tens of thousands of people are dying every single day because of ISIS. I’m not saying that we should sacrifice American lives; I’m just simply saying that when we are weighing each single person’s life equally, we should intervene, because in doing so we are minimizing the deaths in the long term. Obviously, in the short term, if we start a full scale war against ISIS, more people are going to die, but in the long term we’re actually trying to stop ISIS and actually make the region more peaceful.
How much of a priority should combatting climate change be?
AK: Climate change should be a huge priority. It’s one of the biggest threats that we’re facing right now — not necessarily militaristically, although, it has been shown that if global warming and climate change lead to fewer resources in conflict areas, then that leads to serious conflict and drives things like terrorism and, frankly, global conflict. I think it’s one of the issues that we have to be taking very seriously, and that will affect us sooner than we think.
JM: I think it needs to be a priority, but I’m not sure how much weight we can put on it. Because I think in the past, actions have failed in the U.S. because of how polarized our country has become. We need to find the right way, an effective way that would actually be able to work in our country because the political climate right now is really divisive. And I think just talking about climate change without actually trying to find a compromise between the left and the right would not be a solution in the long term.
MG: I think there’s no overstating the importance of meaningful diplomacy, especially domestically relative to climate change. But I think a big part of that in moving things like that forward is the cultural divide here that exists in the United States, in which people systematically neglect the fact that global warming is an issue. Republicans and Democrats now are stalling diplomacy. They’re disagreeing merely for a political reason. I think it’s important that we establish an underlying education about environmental change and procedure, and just encourage public discourse and awareness.
MR: I don’t think it’s as much an issue in education. If you look at polling numbers, generally younger people are more invested in science and are far more likely to understand the importance of climate change. However, I think a large part of it is that a lot of politicians are heavily supported by the fossil fuel industry and the oil industry, especially with the rise of fracking in the U.S. and all the controversy that comes with that. Unfortunately, politicians are still so dependent on the funding and the support that they get from traditional energy industries that they’re going to be hesitant to support any kind of accord.
Should the United States enact stricter gun control legislation?
AK: I think we need strict, comprehensive gun reform. I think that’s been proven by the fact that we’ve had more mass shootings than days in the U.S. this year. This is not a problem other western countries have. I think honestly that says enough.
MG: I don’t disagree that we need more gun control, but I think it’s important where we locate our efforts. I think that we do need more universal background checks, criminal checks, and especially one bigger issue that needs to come to the forefront of this debate is mental health checks and clearances. Because a big part of these shootings is that there’s always a shooter behind the gun. If you incentivize getting rid of guns, some people will want to latch onto them regardless. You’ll radicalize those people that have the guns and want them simply for self-defense. And you’ll create a black market as we did in the prohibition, which will create gangs, violence and other organizations that can’t even be tracked at all under the government.
JM: I think by having a universal ban on guns, we’re just taking away guns from the good people. I think the bad guys will always take them no matter what. It’s like, if you’re a drug addict, even if we ban all drugs, you’re going to find them somewhere. People with training should be able to get guns. So when they are put into a situation where they have to protect themselves, or protect their families, they are capable of doing so. We’re not training everyone. We’re ensuring that when you get a gun, you have to have training.
MR: A recent FBI report said that only 3.1 percent of mass shootings are stopped by a good person — a non-law enforcement person with a gun, like a civilian shooting someone. So in practicality, that doesn’t really happen. It’s not always about training. It’s about the gun getting in the wrong hands. It’s about a kid picking up the gun and accidentally using it thinking it’s a toy. Because people don’t know how to use guns, and because it would require an extensively high amount of training, like a law enforcement level amount of training, realistically it’s unfeasible.