A few weeks ago, I took to War on the Rocks to advocate Presidential leadership in combatting ISIL. After digesting the President’s speech last night, I am pleased with his plan, although I obviously would have liked to have seen it earlier. A few quick thoughts:
Good
1. The President framed the threat of ISIL effectively. He cited their threats against the United States, but differentiated those threats from actual intelligence indicating planning or execution.
2. The President educated listeners. This tightly constructed speech went a long way toward informing listeners about this group, why it is necessary to act, and why it is necessary to act now.
3. The President reminded us of our greatness and centrality. Some of us are not and have never been convinced that the President really believes this; hearing him state it as forcefully as he did last night was refreshing.
4. The President stated that he would not hesitate to act in Syria. Any hope of containing this threat likely depends on action in Syria. It is good that the President recognized this.
Not so Good
1. The President simply does not get it, when he says “ISIL is not Islamic”. This is ridiculous on its face. To admit that ISIL is an Islamic movement is not to tar the entire religion or paint all Muslims with the same brush – it is merely to acknowledge reality. The President has chosen to ignore the civilizational divide that exists and nurtures this threat, and it is not convincing to a nation of people who grow more convinced each day that we are in fact, locked in a decades long struggle with a religiously motivated ideology.
2. The President overstated the objective. He told us that “we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.” After thirteen years, two wars and countless operations, we have not destroyed Islamic terror threats. I daresay “destroying” ISIL will take considerably more effort than the President described last night.
3. The President’s assertion of authority is inconsistent with the degree of immediate threat. Mr. Obama portrayed the ISIL threat accurately early in his speech, describing it as one that is distant but growing, with aspirations to harm us but no known plans to do so. So when he states “I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL”, he is of course, asserting that he has the authority to do so without Congressional approval. With that formality out of the way, he then lays out his plan to seek Congressional approval. This kabuki is how our government reconciles the War Powers Act, but my approach to the Commander-in-Chief’s authority leads me to conclude that this is exactly the kind of thing the framers wanted Congress to approve, and not the sort of emergency that requires the action of an “energetic” Executive.
Bryan McGrath is the Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group LLC, a defense consultancy, and the Assistant Director of the Hudson Center for American Seapower.
Image: White House
William B. Paris 
benchikh 
JTC 
Scott Sundt 
Jay Reardon 
William 
Bryan McGrath 
After two generations of my family having served with the United States (US) military in Iraq I still wonder if there is a long-term coherent strategic plan to counter ISIS?–One that will endure longer than just the current administration?
Congress voted swiftly and with seemingly little debate in 2002 to go to war against Iraq over another “immediate threat” posed from Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The push by the Bush Administration and authorization by Congress resulted in a decade plus involvement in Iraq that cost the US and its allies dearly in blood and treasure–and as we now see with little positive results.
If ISIS is such an immediate threat to the West and the region are we to fight it alone?
I agree with Mr. McGrath that ISIS is an Islamic movement. With many of the top Islamic religious leaders condemning ISIS it will be interesting to see how the Arab League reacts. Will they unite under the banner of Islam to stop ISIS? ISIS is a threat to the West but an immediate threat to countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan due to its geographic proximity. The Arab League has the opportunity to step up to the plate of leadership and help stop the atrocities that are occurring daily.
Will the Arab League commit military forces or just strongly condemn ISIS, donate money to improve their image and look to the US and Western allies to carry out the distasteful work of military action? I hope they will act and not as usual be willing to “fight to the last American”.
The President may already be legally authorized to conduct military action in Iraq but renewed long term military action should be debated on and authorized by Congress. Long after the President and members of Congress have left office the effects will be felt. I don’t want a third generation of my family to serve in a Middle Eastern conflict unnecessarily.
Mr Obama is the last chance for American politics what’s a clever president,deferently from Bush that disordered this big country
The biggest problem is the last one you mentioned. The U.S. Constitution has been consistently ignored by Presidents who commit acts of war without as much as a nod to Congress. These are the actions of kings. If our Constitutional form of government is to survive, Congress must take such ignoring of Constitution mandates seriously. I say this without regard for which President does this or which political party he belongs to. Either we take the Constitution seriously or our supposed representational form of government is endangered.
Talk is cheap–actions speak much louder than words. And strategy that isn’t adequately supported by sufficient resources is just a bunch of words. The days of bold and decisive action are passed and now we are left with a series of foggy statements that leave too many mixed signals for our allies, our citizens, and our adversaries. There is no such thing as a geopolitical vacuum–something will always take its place. In making the case to expend an indefinite amount of US blood and treasure, we have not changed the landscape of the conflict in the Middle East, nor have we helped ourselves in any other region in the world. We keep “Waiting for Gadot” as though there is some absolutist strategy out there that will once and for all “solve” the Middle East crisis. Sorry–the world is a complex and messy place and sometimes you have to take extreme action whether you like it or not. Kicking the can down the road for the next administration is not much of a strategy and generally just makes the problem worse. The concept of creating more entangling alliances within the Middle East while trying to wage a 1000 year war on the margins is not a recipe for success. The best strategies are executed without broadcasting them to your adversaries. They are bold, decisive and leave no room for interpretation that action has taken place, the consequences have been severe, and the resolve to finish the campaign is without doubt. It is wise to remember the words of strategists from ancient times, as they still ring true today as they did then. One is Thucydides who wrote that “the strong will do what they will, the weak suffer what they must”. The US is the undisputed world power–we really can do whatever we want, at whatever scale we want, if we have the resolve to do it. And we don’t need anyone’s permission. The second is the famous statement by Counsel Lucius Aemilius who said,
“I am not, fellow citizens, one who believes that no advice may be given to leaders; nay rather I judge him to be not a sage, but haughty, who conducts everything according to his own opinion alone. What therefore is my conclusion? Generals should receive advice, in the first place from the experts who are both specially skilled in military matters and have learned from experience; secondly, from those who are on the scene of action, who see the terrain, the enemy, the fitness of the occasion, who are sharers in the danger, as it were, aboard the same vessel. Thus, if there is anyone who is confident that he can advise me as to the best advantage of the state in this campaign which I am about to conduct, let him not refuse his services to the state, but come with me into Macedonia. I will furnish him with his sea-passage, with a horse, a tent, and even travel-funds. If anyone is reluctant to do this and prefers the leisure of the city to the hardships of campaigning, let him not steer the ship from on shore. The city provides enough subjects for conversation; let him confine his garrulity to these; and let him be aware that I shall be satisfied with the advice originating in camp.”
Consul Lucius Aemilius
168 B.C.
The President has spoken–now what? My horse is ready and I await with bated breath.
It’s just amazing that someone at this publication would mimic the intellectual level of the [I am name-calling instead of making a polite and constructive argument] at Fox News and not understand Obama’s statement that “ISIS is not Islamic”. Is the Westboro Church “Christian”? It’s a very fine but extremely significant distinction that all Muslims will understand. The President’s statement devalues the credibility and respect of ISIS in the worldwide Muslim Community (of 1.8 billion) to zero.
THIS COMMENT WAS EDITED BY THE MODERATOR. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL AND POLITE
Mr President I have always heard good words from Presidents just like you. Having served in the US Army Infantry 1969-1971, I have felt the good words many times with the broken promises. I now live next door to Fort Knox. Does this mean the 41 percent cut you just handed the many men and women serving will be returned? OR do you still intend to cut the miltary to benefit your social programs only time will tell if your good words are backed with broken promises or the truth. Only time will tell if you truly will protect our way of life through action rather than good words and broken promises.
Well, Jay Reardon, kinda looks like the President is backtracking a little on his “ISIL isn’t Islamic”, if his UN speech is to be believed. Oh, and I watched it on MSNBC.