Discussion for article #228201
I think this is right on the money. The national mood certainly shifted. It seemed, for a little bit, like the liberal interventionists were yelling against the wind of public opinion and then we got not one but two beheadings. The tone of discourse changed. ISIL/ISIS revealed themselves as monsters and…
…well, that’s what they were trying to do. Do you think they were trying to provoke a military response, however or were they trying to scare Americans? If the latter, have they figured out that tactic doesn’t work very well? Particularly in an age where the vast majority of Americans can support military action anywhere without taking on any personal risk, the more natural reaction is righteous anger or even a kind of righteous indifference (“fine, sic our drones and stealth fighters on them.”)
Maybe ISIL/ISIS thinks that in the long run being attacked by the U.S. military is a good thing. All they have to do is survive and, if they do, they might have more popular support than ever. Though that could also backfire. Nobody likes a loser.