Established 1826 — Oldest College Newspaper West of the Alleghenies

Obama’s reluctance about ISIS is actually a good thing

By Greg Dick, dickgr@miamioh.edu

As the United States prepares to wage war against the Islamic State (ISIS), reluctant isn't exactly the word most American would like associated with their Commander in Chief. Yet, on the pages of The New York Times and the Washington Post, that's exactly how columnists like David Brooks and David Ignatius have chosen to characterize President Obama.

Perhaps reluctant isn't the worst word to be used, though. As a descriptive word, it's certainly better than detached - which up until this past Wednesday was probably the single word that described the president's approach to confronting ISIS.

At one point, the president called ISIS "the JV squad" of terror organizations. When an American journalist, James Foley, was brutally beheaded by ISIS, Obama issued a statement from Martha's Vineyard and then proceeded to hit the links just five minutes later. And up until this past Wednesday, for all intents and purposes the White House plan was, we have no plan.

So in a small turn, but one for the better, the president has moved from being detached to being reluctant.

As a "reluctant leader," the president has acknowledged that ISIS poses a credible threat to the United States. He's coming to terms with the fact that if the United States does not act no one else will. And that if left unchecked ISIS will continue to capture more territory and brutally slaughter religious and ethnic minorities.

In this way, reluctance represents a step towards engagement and U.S leadership. And in a time like this, U.S. leadership is what the world needs.

Currently the U.S. is looking to lead by organizing the international effort to degrade ISIS's capabilities and take back the territory captured by the merciless terror organization.

As former Secretary of State James Baker, a man who knows a thing or two about coalition building, noted on NBC's Meet the Press, building a coalition means American boots will have to be on the ground.

Despite what the president may hope, Baker correctly points out that other nations will not send troops or other forms of support if the nation's organizing the effort is not similarly committed. Now, this does not mean the United States' level of commitment has to reach the 500,000 troops it sent during the Gulf War, but it does mean the President should stop publicly declaring the option as off the table.

Along these same lines, the president should be honest that the situation will require more airstrikes in Iraq, not less. In his speech, he curiously pointed to Somalia and Yemen. Those two countries have seen 136 less airstrikes on terrorists within their borders than Iraq this year.

Neither of these options is ideal, but they just might be what is required at this moment.

Obama is right to listen to the American public and move off of the sidelines. Hopefully in the coming days, the President comes full circle and embraces his role in the world and leads the charge to help the Iraqi people defeat ISIS.