Mr. Obama, Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

One week after publicly announcing that the United States did not yet have a strategy to deal with ISIS, President Barack Obama has indicated that the current goal of the US effort in Iraq is to diminish the extremist group to "a manageable problem." His comments, once more,instead of reassuring America and the world, raise more questions about whether the President has a clear and useful vision for eliminating the threat of ISIS and other jihadists. Before saying that his goal is to make ISIS "manageable," he had said the United States planned to "destroy" ISIS. But that has apparently changed, morphing into : "We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem," Obama said during a speech Wednesday in Estonia, as reported by The Wall Street Journal. Obama also said in the speech that the administration's objective is to "degrade and destroy" ISIS in Iraq, and that the US has already been "moving effectively" to achieve that goal, The Hill reported. The remarks have created agitation among critics who argue that the comments are contradictory. Illinois GOP Representative Adam Kinzinger told "Fox and Friends" Wednesday that the President needed to decide whether the United States was going to "contain or crush" ISIS."That's the big question. Are we going to contain ISIS, or are we going to crush ISIS? And, the President has not answered that." Conservative radio show host Laura Ingraham also criticized Obama, saying his comments are nonsensical :"When you hear the President talk about destroy and degrade [ISIS], that makes sense. When you hear the President talking about managing the problem, that doesn't make sense," Ingraham said on "Fox and Friends," according to Politico. "I mean, we manage all sorts of problems in our daily lives, this is not a manageable problem, this is a force of evil." ~~~~~ The position of Pentagon leader Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel hasn't been clear, either. On August 21, at a press conference with General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hagel said : "ISIS is beyond "just a terrorist group" and poses a greater threat than al-Qaida. This is beyond anything that we've seen....ISIS is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it ... and get ready." General Dempsey said it was possible to "contain" ISIS, but "not in perpetuity....This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated." Hardly a vote for Obama's current "manageable" ploy. But, Hagel tried to fall into line this week, when Pentagon press secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said that Obama's statements are consistent with one another : "It's actually both. And I know that sounds a little bit strange to hear." But, Kirby said the US can degrade, disrupt, and destroy ISIS "targets" in Iraq but cannot destroy ISIS as an organization. "The only way you're going to destroy an organization like this is by defeating their ideology," he said. "You can bomb them every day, and you're not going to get rid of the ideology that allows them to fester and to continue to get resources and to grow, to train and to equip. There's got to be a broader-based strategy, and we're working on that right now," That last phrase - working on that right now - is consistent, showing that the strategy has not been finalized. ~~~~~ And there is still the fundamenral criticism of Obama's Iraq, and al-Qaida / ISIS, policy -- that he let al-Qaida bounce back in Iraq because he pulled out US troops in 2011, thus setting the stage for the development of ISIS, a criticism most recently voiced by former Ambassador to Iraq Paul Bremer. The United States had defeated al-Qaida due to the 2007 surge, a fact that "President Obama admitted himself when he came into office," Bremer told Fox News. "We beat al-Qaida in Iraq under the surge directed by General Petraeus, and, obviously, authorized by President Bush," Bremer said Thursday. "The problem in Iraq is what has happened in the last two to three years, particularly after we pulled out the troops in 2011, which was a big mistake." By retreating from Iraq, "the vacuum allowed al-Qaida to regain strength, ultimately spawning ISIS, which now poses a threat to Middle Eastern countries....The West Arab countries would be willing to join with the United States to defeat ISIS, but they wanted to see American leadership in the effort." A lot of the Arabs in the Middle East have substantial military capabilities. They could be engaged to help fight ISIL. But, they won't do it unless they are persuaded America is prepared to take the lead," he said. "Saudi Arabia has a quarter-million men under arms. They have an advanced American-supplied air force. There's a lot that other countries in the region could be doing to help, but they won't do it unless they see a clear American commitment." ~~~~~ What we have is a US President who refuses to full-steam commit American resources and military forces into eliminating ISIS, even though the entire world is urging him to take up the challenge. A "manageable" ISIS is a very weak "strategy," if that is what it is, to use to confront an aggressively apocalyptic military force determined to rule the Middle East and the western world. Does Obama hesitate because he refuses to admit that the George Bush strategy worked and because it would nullify his sophomoric "no boots on the ground" position. Or is he simply incapable of making military decisions -- he has not made a single one that goes beyond airstrikes since becoming President. The US has had military aircraft, naval carriers and other ships and advisors in and near Iraq for several months, all capable of intelligence gathering. Regional allies have certainly added to this. If Obama really wanted to announce a strategy to destroy ISIS, he has had more than enough time to do it. It is long past time to act. ~~~~~ So, dear readers, what should the US strategy be? A friend who's a Middle East expert talked to me recently about the future for Iraq. His take is that what's going to happen to the Iraqi people is going to happen, and it is too late to stop events that will be painful to watch unfold. But, he said, now we must make sure that the spillover doesn't continue into Syria, Turkey, Israel, France, Italy -- the list keeps expanding outwardly because of US inaction. If eliminating ISIS and al-Qaida and their affiliates means destroying much of Syria and Iraq, that is the price those countries and the world must pay to be free of terrorism. The US will lead in rebuilding them and putting the Middle East on its economic and political feet, just as we did in Europe after WWII via the Marshall Plan. Even the oil fields, if rendered inoperable now, can be re-drilled and made operable later. But it has to be done now. Innocent people will die, but not as many if we turn and run. My friend addressed the tactical strategy and I took away the sense that the US knows where ISIS is -- its various headquarters and camps, its escape routes. It seems to me that it's possible to destroy ISIS, but that every day Obama dithers makes the job harder and more painful for the Iraqi and Syrian people. However, the pain would be much less than that of falling into the hands of the murderous, marauding beheaders who control ISIS. They need to be wiped out. And the way to do that seems to be so clear - the extinction of their army and leadership. There is such an urgency to act that any reaction that it is a religious war against Islam should be dealt with while the attack continues. If Obama is unable or unwilling to act, it is now up to Vice President Biden, the Joint Chiefs and Congress to force his hand. We have tried everything rlse with this President. It is now time, with Thomas Paine, to say, Mr. Obama, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."