<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Obama Gaffe Weakens Role

But lack of 'strategy' for Islamic State doesn't mean U.S. isn't weighing options

The Columbian
Published: September 3, 2014, 5:00pm

When it comes to gaffes or blunders or a dreaded case of foot-in-mouth disease, the worst kind of affliction is the one that confirms pre-existing suspicions. The one that fits into a previously defined narrative. The one that allows critics to point fingers and say, “Aha, we told you so.”

This is true for any form of leadership, and it is particularly true in politics — a realm where perception becomes reality. So it is that critics jumped on President Obama’s declaration last week that “we don’t have a strategy yet” when it comes to dealing with forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

It should be noted that Obama was referring to not having made any decisions on how to respond to the growing militant threat. And it should be noted that the complexity of the situation requires far more subtlety than the suggestion from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that the United States should “bomb them back to the Stone Age” — a manner of armchair quarterbacking that contains shameful levels of pandering to a particular constituency.

Yet despite the complexities involved, Obama’s comment quickly took its place in the pantheon of presidential gaffes. As Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and chair of the House intelligence committee, said, “I’m not sure the severity of the problem has really sunk in to the administration just yet.”

Another example of that severity was delivered Tuesday, when ISIS forces revealed they had beheaded an American captive, journalist Steven Sotloff, and had posted an online video of the execution. This came days after the execution of American journalist James Foley, and it once again emphasized the barbarism of the Islamist terrorist group.

The difficulty of developing a strategy can be found in the fact that one year ago, the administration was considering bombing the Syrian soldiers who were fighting against ISIS rebels. Now, ISIS is the bad guys, serving to shake what little stability existed in both Syria and Iraq. And if U.S. leaders have difficulty simply identifying who the enemy is, developing a strategy becomes nearly impossible.

Yet those six simple words — “We don’t have a strategy yet” — threaten to linger as symbolic of Obama’s presidency. Much like the current political mantra that “elections have consequences,” so do words, and Obama’s statement plays into the narrative penned by his critics.

Even after recently launching airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, a Pew Research survey showed that 54 percent of Americans felt Obama was “not tough enough” when it came to foreign policy. But, as retired Army Gen. George Joulwan, former NATO supreme allied commander, told CNN: “I think we need to have clarity here of what that mission is, what it is before you start sending airstrikes on troops. We didn’t do that in Iraq or Afghanistan or in Vietnam. We’ve got to do it if we’re going to get involved again.”

Therein lies the dilemma. The United States for too long has attempted to be the world’s police force, trying to manage situations that proved unmanageable and creating uncertainty about the nation’s role on the world stage. But when a terrorist organization makes specific threats against the United States and has no qualms about demonstrating its inhuman hatred of Americans, a well-conceived strategy is necessary.

That requires leadership, the kind that says, “It’s a difficult situation, and we are considering all options and will react decisively.” Such a statement, accompanied by action, would offer more reassurance than a weak admission that no strategy exists.

Loading...