Editorial: Is there a 'strategy' yet?

By Herald Staff15 hours ago

So tomorrow the president who has not had a strategy for dealing with the Islamic State as it gobbles up parts of Iraq and Syria will on the eve of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks outline his future strategy to the American people.

From what we've heard so far, there is little reason to be optimistic that this lead-from-behind president is up to the task of approving the kind of decisive action a real victory over these terrorists would take.

First, of course, President Obama has already vowed, "This is not going to be an announcement about U.S. ground troops. This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war."

Having ordered troops out of the region precipitously as it turned out, leaving the road wide open for the takeover of large swaths of territory by the Islamic State terrorists, Obama is now determined to protect his left political flank all the while telegraphing to those terrorists the limits of his "strategy" - such as it is.

How else to explain why the commander in chief would take one huge element of American fighting power off the table. As a military "strategy" that's nothing short of insane. With some 1,000 troops already on the ground in Iraq, why preclude the use of other special forces?

Then just listen to how the president described his approach to tackling the forces of the Islamic State during his Sunday "Meet the Press" interview: "We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We're going to shrink the territory that they control. And ultimately we're going to defeat them."

So to parse those lines, first he intends to "manage" ISIS, as he put it earlier, then "ultimately" defeat them - without defining how long "ultimately" might take. Those are hardly words designed to instill confidence in others in the region whose lands and societies are at risk.

And they are certainly not words that will inspire confidence in the American people that this commander in chief is prepared to lead.