National Security Post

The unique situation of this issue causes citizens to think about a bigger issue: how much power should one human being hold in making decisions for the voice of millions? The President has the resources and knowledge to make wise choices considering the well being of a country but I don't think the Constitution allots one person that much power. I agree with Obama's current decision to use force against a group that is killing innocent people and religious minorities. I agree with this decision because it reminds me of the circumstance of the Nazi Holocaust where the US intervened and saved thousands of lives. The writer emphasizes the president should have power over the situation because, "The Islamic State group, which was founded in 2004, has not been linked to the 9/11 attacks".  Any terrorist group- no matter if they are directly involved with our country- should be taken down to show that killing "for fun" or because of hate towards a group of people isn't tolerated and will have consequences. US fighting injustice could possibly save lives as other terrorist groups see the actions taken against the Islamic state group and debate the consequences of thoughtless killing. On the other hand, I don't agree with the power the president (one person) holds to shape the lives of millions (citizens and soldiers alike). In the future, presidents could arise that don't hold what is best for the majority of the American people and could thus have power- shown through Obama and Bush's actions- to wage an unnecessary war. The Constitution does state that the president is the commander in chief of the militia but also states that the president should have his power checked so I believe both ideas should be enforced.