Speaking to the nation from the Oval Office for only the third time in his presidency, 54-year-old Barack Obama hopes to answer critics who insist the country is unsafe from terrorism. Since the U.S. was blindsided on Sept. 11, President George W. Bush spent much of his presidency fighting terrorism, for better or worse. Most experts agree that the Iraq War opened up the floodgates of Islamic terrorism in Iraq, giving rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syira [ISIS], now washing up on American soil. While the San Bernardino massacre, killing 14 and injuring 21, was the second worst terrorism attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, it raises red flags about Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy. Once Obama ended the Iraq War Dec. 15, 2011, the U.S. military has played a backseat role fighting ISIS and other Saudi-backed Sunni terror groups seeking to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2012 gave terrorists groups like ISIS free reign in Iraq and Syria. Refusing to put U.S. boots-on-the-ground in Iraq and Syria, Obama’s been kidding himself that air strikes alone, with France, Britain and Russia, can root ISIS out of its capital in Syria, Raqqa, or its largest urban prize in Iraq, Mosul, its Northern oil capital. Controlling former Iraq oil fields around Mosul and selling bootlegged Iraqi oil in the black market, primarily according to Moscow Turkey, has netted ISIS around $1 million a day to fund its growing caliphate. With Nov. 13 Paris ISIS terror attacks still in the news, and San Bernardino making headlines, Obama will have to give more than empty reassurance in the Oval Office. Without a change in policy, Obama could hurt Democratic front-runner former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential hopes.
Recent CNN/ORC polling indicates that Obama has a 40% approval rating on handling terrorism. Watching terrorism wash up in San Bernardino is a game-changer, proving that the White counter-terrorism strategy hasn’t stopped ISIS’s global reach. Since ending the Iraq War, Obama’s said repeatedly that Mideast countries need to do the heavy lifting in Iraq and Syria, namely, combat operations against the Islamic State. Bush spent nearly $2 trillion prosecuting the Iraq War, building up the infrastructure, and, most importantly, the Iraqi military. When ISIS finished its bliztkrieg across Iraq and Syria in 2014 seizing some 30% of sovereign land, the Iraqi military retreated, leaving most of its costly U.S. arsenal to ISIS. Obama, and his Secretary of State John Kerry, blame former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failing to bring enough Sunnis into his Shiite government.
Iraq’s military collapse had more to do with sectarian strife inside the military where Iraqi recruits had more loyalty to ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Sunni Wahhabi groups than al-Maliki’s Shiite government. While former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, he ruled the country as a Baathist or secular socialist like al-Assad in Syria. Today’s Iraq, while some 60% Shiite, longs for the good old days before Bush toppled Saddam April 10, 2003. Maliki and current Prime Minister Haider al-Abidi antagonized Sunnis cozying up to Iran, creating disloyalty in the military. Adding more Sunnis in the Iraqi military, as Obama and Kerry urge, would have created even more problems. Obama’s Oval office speech must recognize how far the White House has drifted from an effective counter-terrorism strategy. It’s not a matter of who does the heavy lifting but whether or not it gets done.
With French President Francois Hollande practically declaring war on ISIS after the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, Obama’s next step must demonstrate the leadership needed to defeat ISIS. If it requires U.S., French, British or Russian boots on the ground to help the Kurd’s rid ISIS of Iraqi and Syrian strongholds, then it must be done. Talking about how the burden should be distributed, ignores whose military can battle ISIS terrorists. If Sept. 11 galvanized the nation against Osama bin Laden, the nation’s ready to do what’s needed to defeat ISIS. Most military experts, on both sides of the Atlantic, agree that ground troops are needed to root ISIS out of villages, towns and cities in Iraq and Syria. Since there’s no military other than the U.S. that can do the job, Obama has a big decision to make. It’s not a matter of who should do the heavy lifting but who can realistically lead the charge.
Before Obama can get his Iraq and Syria policy right, he needs to settle the Syrian regime change question. So far, Barack’s gone along with the Saudi backed insurgency against al-Assad, referring to the groups as “moderates.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has pleaded with Obama to table the al-Assad question and, for the time being, go after ISIS. Speaking at the Oval Office tonight, Barack can’t reassure the public by continuing to do the same old things. However much the 18-month-old air campaign in Iraq and Syria has done to degrade ISIS, it’s not enough. Committing to use all U.S. military assets involves more than just air strikes. It’s unrealistic to expect the Kurd’s Peshmerga forces to battle ISIS on the their own without substantial U.S. and coalition ground support. Whether Obama admits it or not, ISIS has become a global national security threat to the U.S.
