Excerpts of the President's Speech To Combat ISIS in Syria
Four Point Plan Reviewed in Class

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists - Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. That’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition. to roll back this terrorist threat.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred American service members to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi Security Forces. Now that those teams have completed their work - and Iraq has formed a government - we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission - we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We will also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL control.
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.
Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into - and out of - the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.
Fourth, we will continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by ISIS.

Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan
ByTHE EDITORIAL BOARDSEPT. 23, 2014

President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East.

He says he has justification for taking military action against the Islamic State and Khorasan, another militant group. But his assertions have not been tested or examined by Congress. How are Americans to know whether they have the information to make any judgment on the wisdom of his actions?

There isn’t a full picture — because Mr. Obama has not provided one — of how this bombing campaign will degrade the extremist groups without unleashing unforeseen consequences in a violent and volatile region.

The administration also claims that the airstrikes are legal under international law because they were done in defense of Iraq. In a Sept. 20 letter to the United Nations, Iraq complained that the Islamic State was attacking its territory and said American assistance was needed to repel the threat. But the United Nations Security Council should vote on the issue.

Meanwhile, Congress has utterly failed in its constitutional responsibilities. It has left Washington and gone into campaign fund-raising mode, shamelessly ducking a vote on this critical issue. That has deprived the country of a full and comprehensive debate over the mission in Syria and has shielded administration officials and military commanders from tough questions about every aspect of this operation — from its costs to its very obvious risks — that should be asked and answered publicly.

So, even thoughpollshave shown public support for airstrikes in Syria, it may not last. Mr. Obama has said there needs to be a sustained mission against ISIS over an unlimited period; it’s unlikely the Americans would back a prolonged campaign if they don’t fully understand the aims or likelihood of success.

The military action early Tuesday was quite different from what Mr. Obama explained in a televised speech on Sept. 10. For months the administration has focused on the ISIS threat, yet these strikes also targeted Khorasan, a group the government says is linked to Al Qaeda and engaged in “active plotting that posed an imminent threat to the United States and potentially our allies.”

Mr. Obama has said airstrikes alone are not enough, and native ground troops in both Iraq and Syria will be relied on after the bombings. But it will be months before Americans can turn the mainstream opposition into a fighting force; in Iraq, after six weeks of American airstrikes, Iraqi Army troops have scarcely budged ISIS from its strongholds.

Finally, there is the question of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. The Obama administration says it can counter him by building up the moderate opposition. They also make the odd point that allied military action by five Arab partners — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan — is a slap in the face to Mr. Assad. But, of course, he welcomes the airstrikes on ISIS.

With so much at stake and so much unknown, before he gets any further into this operation, Mr. Obama needs to get Congress’s approval and prove that he has fully accounted for the consequences of this foray into Syria.

Directions:
1. What is the source, author, and date of this article?
2. Annotate the article. 1. Selective underlining:
3..Main Idea on top of each paragraph
4. Key points on side
5 Using your annotations write a summary of the article.

For the strategy to work, an awful lot of things will have to go right.
USA Today Editorial Board August 23, 2014

What Obama has crafted is a patient, multiyear strategy that aims to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS without using U.S. combat troops. Instead, the ground war is to be fought and aided by ISIS' many enemies. The model — cited repeatedly in a pre-speech briefing — is not previous Iraq wars but rather the war on terrorism with its similarly framed objective to "dismantle, disrupt and defeat" al-Qaeda.

It is a task from which the nation cannot shrink. ISIS is intent on attacking the United States and poses a unique threat.

But it would also be wise to recognize at the outset that no scheme this complex goes as planned, particularly in the Middle East's violent cross-currents. For the strategy to work, an awful lot of things will have to go right.

Iraqis, eternally fighting each other for power, need to stay united behind an inclusive government that they have yet to fully form. The Sunni tribes that arose during the Iraq War to rout ISIS' previous incarnation, al-Qaeda in Iraq, will need to do so again, even though many are now allied with ISIS.

The Iraqi army — a pushover in two invasions by the United States and one by ISIS — will have to become an effective fighting force. And Syrian Sunnis, aided by soon-to-arrive U.S. airpower, training and weapons, must drive back ISIS without helping similarly barbaric Syrian President Bashar Asssad.

Most particularly, Arab nations — including Sunni ones — will need to carry the fight not just to ISIS but also to other agents of radical Islam. If one thing has been true since 9/11, it is that the larger but strikingly reluctant and disorganized forces of moderate Islam must ultimately be the ones to crush their extremists.

All of this is fertile ground for both legitimate questioning and political opportunism, which is why it is imperative that Obama uses every tool he has to rally the nation behind a common goal. That includes Congress. Obama has the power to act on his own, but that does not make it smart. The squeamish should be forced to declare themselves now, rather than running from a tough pre-election vote.

Obama has plenty of ammunition to make his argument. Today's situation, grim as it may be, looks no worse than the Iraq War did at its low point.

Much as America's military might is needed, the harder task is diplomatic: getting ISIS' natural enemies — also enemies of each other — to collaborate.

Pursuit of that goal can't possibly ignite emotions in the way that Pearl Harbor or 9/11 did, because there has not yet been a comparable event to raise the nation's fury. But there surely will be if ISIS is not defanged before it can strike.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by itsEditorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

Directions:
1. What is the source, author and date of this article?
2. Annotate the article. 1. Selective underlining:
3..Main Idea on top of each paragraph
4. Key points on side
5 Using your annotations write a summary of the article.