Five Best Thursday Columns

This article is from the archive of our partner .

The New York Times on why the United States must proceed with extreme caution in its military assault on the Islamic State. The editorial board urge President Obama to seek the approval of Congress before moving forward with increased military action. "... the expansion of the American role in that regional conflict carries substantial and unpredictable risks that Americans may not be willing to bear... That’s why this open-ended operation, which Mr. Obama says will take time, demands congressional approval..." The editors continue, warning that the U.S. is expanding its military campaign in Iraq and Syria on increasingly unstable footing.  "To be effective, American airstrikes need to be followed up by ground troops who can recapture and hold territory against ISIS. Administration officials have long argued against American military action in Syria in part because so-called moderate rebel groups were divided and ineffective. Now the White House is planning to train and support these groups, but it is by no means certain that this will work."

Philip Stephens in The Financial Times on why voting for Scottish independence movement could be devastating mistake. Stephens argues against independence, writing that the movement is largely based on raw, nationalistic sentiment in an era that demands collectivism. "The truth is that it is hard to imagine a moment during the past 300 years when it would have been more foolish for the nations of Britain to separate. Prosperity and security in an age of great power competition belongs to those comfortable with multiple identities – the ones who bind themselves together in shared endeavour." Stephens warns that independence would devastate Scotland's financial sector, which would have untold effects on its economy. "The nationalists gloss over too the profound economic shock that would follow separation. The financial markets are already offering something of a preview. Scotland would lose much of its financial services industry overnight."

Thomas Pierret and Emile Hokayem in Politico on why a United States partnership with Bashar al-Assad would be a catastrophic mistake. Pierret and Hokayem warn that for many Syrian Sunnis, Assad is seen as a more dangerous actor than ISIS "... It is the House of Assad, not the Islamic State, that has tormented them for more than four decades. Many of these Syrians wonder why the jihadis’ beheadings warrant intervention while Assad’s far more numerous atrocities do not."  Pierret and Hokayem write that America should avoid the potential short term benefits of teaming up with Assad in favor of a more viable long term strategic outlook. "Assad will look for ways to entangle Western countries by reaching out through third parties, voluntarily sharing information or conducting raids on Islamic State strongholds to show himself useful. It would be tragic if tactical expediency rather than strategic soundness were to drive Western policy in Syria."

Alexandra Petri in The Washington Post on why the National Football League needs to be brought back down to earth.  In light of Ray Rice, Petri writes that the world of the NFL continues to move farther and farther away from reality. "What if I told you that there was a skill you could learn that was so valuable to people in a certain country that it would get you into college, pay your tuition, get a group of people to help push you through college... That keeping you in a position to use this skill would be worth millions of dollars, both to you and to large national organizations? That this skill was considered so valuable that you could commit crimes that sent ordinary people to jail for life or for decades, and keep your job, with one or two minor alterations?" Petri suggests that instead of salvaging the reputation of the NFL, the public should consider why they have that reputation in the first place. "'Think of the program' is the kind of thinking that protected Jerry Sandusky far too long. Protect the reputation. Protect the illusion... This is a pretend-game. Obviously. All sports are pretend-games. Nothing is more deadly serious than things that are ultimately, like football, frivolous. You pretend that things that don’t matter, matter — white lines on turf, a brown leather ball. You pretend that things that do matter — real lives, real people, a woman stunned and groggy in an elevator — don’t."

William J. Bennett in The Wall Street Journal on why Common Core education standards should be adopted (subscription). Bennett writes passionately about the benefits of a common educational curriculum base in the United States. "Certain abilities... should be the common knowledge of all... That's the fundamental idea behind a core curriculum: preserving and emphasizing what's essential, in fields like literature and math, to a worthwhile education... Governors, state education administrators and teachers used these principles as a guide when they developed a set of common standards that were later presented to the country as Common Core. Forty-five states signed up originally. But the process was contaminated by politics..." Bennett argues that conservatives should not reject the Common Core simply because it has become viewed as a big government program. "Governors, state education administrators and teachers used these principles as a guide when they developed a set of common standards that were later presented to the country as Common Core. Forty-five states signed up originally. But the process was contaminated by politics, and that brings us to the debate we have now."

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.