President Obama's ISIS speech leaves many questions unanswered

Luther Vandross was outed as gay after his death.

In a primetime speech to the American people, President Obama sought Congressional support for military action against the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL, the radical group controlling parts of Iraq and Syria.  The president said, “we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy” in his 15-minute speech from the State Floor of the White House.

Obama sought a measured tone that made a case for a broadened campaign against the Sunni militant group —essentially amounting to U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war — while not overstating the threat posed by ISIL to the U.S.  And while the president seeks a coalition of nations to wage a proxy war, therefore seeming to steering clear of the type of entanglements this nation found itself in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has left many questions unanswered.

On the eve of the thirteenth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, President Obama articulated that the terrorist threat posed by ISIL to Iraq, Syria and the greater Middle East — and ultimately to America — is left unchecked, while isolating them from Islam and the Muslim world.  “Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents,” Obama noted. “And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border.”

“In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality,” the president added. “They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists — Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.”

Making the case for military action, Obama insisted this is not America’s fight alone. “American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region,” the president said, proposing a broad coalition to tackle ISIL. “And that’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days.”

Obama offered a four-point counterterrorism strategy including airstrikes, 475 non-combat service members to support Iraqi security forces, resources to support the Syrian opposition; counterterrorism to prevent ISIL attacks, and humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by the terrorist group.

Arguably, during this election season, when Democratic control of the Senate hangs in the balance, this was the president’s opportunity to neutralize his opponents, seize the reins, and control the narrative on foreign affairs.

For a president with sagging poll numbers — a mere 32 percent approval rating on foreign policy — and with the Republicans enjoying an 18-point lead on foreign affairs and a 38-point advantage on national defense, a 10-year high, this was a high-stakes speech.  President Obama was taking a beating over inaction in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.  Furthermore, Secretary of State John Kerry failed to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  Add to that Israel’s recent bombing campaign against Gaza, which was viewed as unjustified by Obama supporters such as people of color, women, Democrats, and younger adults — and yet Israel restocked its arsenal during the Gaza offensive from the Pentagon without White House approval.

Meanwhile, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll suggests Americans have become more hawkish on foreign policy matters in the wake of ISIL.  According to the poll, 61 percent of respondents say U.S. military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is in the national interest.  While 40 percent advocate for air strikes only, 34 percent want air and ground combat, with 15 percent favoring no military action at all.

An impressive 94 percent of Americans polled have viewed news coverage of the ISIS beheadings of American journalists.  Furthermore, 47 percent of people said the country is less safe now than before 9-11, while 26 percent believed it is more safe.

Certainly, the president must read these polls, but it is uncertain whether he will heed the painful lessons of America’s past entanglements, including the deadly, costly occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. military intervention in the Middle East has only exacerbated matters and created the dislocation that has allowed ISIL to thrive. President Obama failed to mention the cost to the U.S. taxpayer of an operation against ISIL or how certain he is that adequate numbers of Mideast allies and moderate Syrian rebels will materialize into a broad coalition to defeat ISIL. Already, ISIL has seized U.S. arms supplied to moderate Syrian rebels by Saudi Arabia and U.S. equipment and weapons supplied to the Iraqi army.

And what if the operation bolsters the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is responsible for the torture, starvation and murder of thousands? What role will Iran play against ISIL? And what if the U.S. is merely taking the bait supplied by ISIL and allowing itself to enter another long, protracted and unwanted war?

Finally, the president failed to mention any diplomatic alternatives to more war in the region or efforts to engage allies such as Saudi Arabia to deal with their own ties to extremism. So, many unanswered questions remain.

Follow David A. Love on Twitter at @davidalove

SHARE THIS ARTICLE