TOW #9 "Obama can fight ISIS without bombs" by Sally Kohn

      The Middle East, always a region of conflict, is going through another reign of terror. ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a group composed of radical Sunni Muslims who are willing to kill their Shia brothers and other ethnicities in Iraq and Syria in order to gain geographic and political power, are creating more chaos in the Middle East. I'm sure people have seen or heard of the beheading videos of American and British journalists that ISIS releases periodically. In response, Obama has stated in his prime-time address that he will strike ISIS down with "strength and resolve", meaning military might and airstrikes. But is this really the solution? CNN writer Sally Kohn thinks not. In her opinion article, "Obama can fight ISIS without bombs", Kohn uses persuasive counterarguments and a digestible structure of her article to say, as her title states, that ISIS should not be brought down with military might, but with more diplomatic solutions.

      Kohn starts the essay with the opposing side and consistently adds the voice of the other perspective of the issue throughout her article, but she quickly and persuasively refutes the opposing side's argument which strengthens her argument since she has already acknowledged the other side. The opposing side wants Obama to "call for more extensive strikes" and even start "an invasion of Iraq". She immediately says her argument that "fighting ISIS is the wrong course of action". She then states three points that support her argument. It's difficult to argue against a side that has already acknowledged the other side, pointed out it's flaws, and configured better solutions to the problem. 

    She also structures her article in a extremely simple and digestible way in which readers can easily extract the information, thus making it easier for readers to see and understand her point and be persuaded. After her introduction and the thesis, Kohn puts three reasons why fighting ISIS with military will not work, "1. U.S. intervention is what destabilized Iraq in the first place -- and more bombing will likely make Iraq less stable", "2. Airstrikes won't destroy radical ideology, they'll make it worse", and "3. There is no direct threat to the United States". She backs up each statement with rationale and then poses the question "If bombing isn't the solution, what is?" She answers her question with four solutions to the problem: "1. Cut access to guns and money", "2. Fix Iraq's political rifts", "3. Provide humanitarian assistance", and "4. Lead a truly international response". This structure is extremely simple and with the simplicity comes her power to change people's views and allow readers to understand her side that America cannot take militaristic approaches to ISIS.

                           Obama delivering his speech about his militaristic approach to ISIS