ISIL Isn't Boko Haram

by Deacon Blues

I watched MSNBC last night to get some of the reaction to the president’s speech on ISIL. I was not surprised to see Lawrence O’Donnell come out against any action and seeking a “do nothing” response, because he has been quite transparent and consistent on this and similar issues. Nor was I surprised at Chris Hayes’ reaction, which consists of asking why we should get involved with ISIL given the Iraq debacle and our lack of a similar military response to other localized terrorist groups (Al Qaeda offshoots, Boko Haram, etc. . . .). In fact, several of the guests drew equivalence between ISIL and these groups, and posited that the United States can’t just send in air strikes and boots on the ground every time a local terrorist group makes a play for territory and destabilization.

What no one mentioned was that all these terrorist groups don’t have access to a looted $450 million, and confiscated United States military hardware, nor possess an advanced capability to use media and recruit. I’m no fan of sending boots back into Iraq or covertly into Syria, but people need to understand that the risk posed by ISIL is different than the risk posed by other groups.