Anyone who has paid any loose attention to the news (even if it has only been a quick glance at the TV in the Union showing Fox News all day) knows at least a little something about the militant regime of ISIS, or the Islamic State, in the Middle East. Many of us saw over the past week or so the news coverage of the 21 Coptic Christians beheaded at the hands of ISIS. To this point, the Obama administration’s treatment of this brutal and gruesome stateless administration has been marginal at best. At some point, we must ask when enough will be enough. It seems as though we as a nation have been comforted by descriptions of ISIS as a junior-varsity team, only to be told days later the United States had underestimated them. 

However, the winds in the Obama Administration — at least with regard to ISIS — may be about to change. According to Colby Itkowitz of The Washington Post, the Obama administration recently asked Congress for the authority to use military power to confront ISIS in the Middle East. The ground for this authority, according to Itkowitz, would be the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which President Bush used to fight Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. However, Itkowitz notes this may be difficult to force through Congress because some may argue ISIS is not related directly to either al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein, making the aforementioned AUMF inapplicable to this situation. However, since the GOP controls both houses and approved the prior AUMF, there is reason to believe even if the Obama administration could not fit an ISIS attack under President Bush’s AUMF, a new one would succeed in the legislative arena. 

We must also ask if an attack on or against ISIS would be necessary or profitable. According to a Poll of Political Scientists in The Washington Post, the majority of those surveyed said they believed attacks would rollback ISIS in the area, and they supported the actions of the President in his strikes against ISIS. Thus, we have political scientists noting the benefits, both present and future, of a strike against ISIS. 

Now, of course these questions deal primarily with U.S. airstrikes on ISIS strongholds over the past year or so, but by extension we can at least speculate that a more comprehensive attack would only drive ISIS operatives out of the region. However, we must make sure any offensive against ISIS from a geopolitical standpoint is sure to succeed. According to Tom Bowman in a recent interview with Ari Shapiro at NPR, the coalition effort in question would include 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi troops. 

This is not quite the level of “decisive action” Colin Powell spoke of when he assessed international conflicts. If the U.S. is to at least address the situation militarily, it must use overwhelming force. We as a nation cannot afford to entertain the idea we would engage with ISIS in any manner that underestimates its ability. How horrid it would be if a public spectacle was made of the U.S. military, or someone’s son or daughter, because of a lack of force used on our part. 

According to The Huffington Post, 54 percent of Americans support the authorization of force. It seems to me a showdown with ISIS is necessary, especially in light of the Jordanian government’s pledge to confront ISIS. The American people agree with the use of force, and the number rises by the day. Political scientists to some degree agree with the proposition of the Obama administration. This makes a potential showdown with ISIS at least a feasible possibility, and one I think we should consider.