Barack Obama's plan to fight Isil is hard to believe
After dodging any commitment in Syria for three years, Barack Obama's sudden call for leadership is undermined by his lack of credibility at home and abroad
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden Photo: AP
1:12PM BST 13 Sep 2014
229 Comments
Were it any other US president in recent memory, delivering a rousing White
House address promising to "vanquish" the bloodthirsty militants
of the Islamic State from the face of the earth would be dismissed as the "easy
part".
Recall Joe Biden, the vice president with half an eye on a run for the top job
in 2016, promising to follow Isil "to the gates of hell" after the
beheading of a second US journalist, and you get the picture of just how
easy it can be.
But as Mr Obama admitted last week with a faint whiff of self-pity, he
struggles with the theatrical requirements of his office. So credit where it
is due: after months of evasion and equivocation, America's
deliberator-in-chief did advance a strategy for confronting Isil in Syria
and Iraq.
Of course, after the talking, comes the genuinely hard part – translating that
theoretical plan of combining American air power with Iraqi and then Syrian
militias into a package that can deliver practical results on the ground.
The challenges, both at home and abroad, would be immense even for an American
president with deep reserves of credibility, but as Mr Obama embarks on this
most difficult and unwanted mission, his personal stock is at a historic
low.
Despite their professions of loyalty in Jeddah this week, Mr Obama's regional
Sunni allies, particularly Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, are unsurprisingly
lukewarm about being harried into a conflict which – as they see it – was
born out a US decision to abandon Syria and Iraq to Shia excesses.
And even the plan smacks of desperation. Only a month ago Mr Obama ridiculed the very idea of arming moderate rebels in Syria as a "fantasy", but now apparently this once silly idea is key to holding Syrian territory when it is recaptured from Isil forces under the cover of US air strikes.
Perhaps Mr Obama would have a shot of dragging his reluctant allies and a war-weary public with him if they really believed that he would brook no other outcome, but this president's track record gives them precious little reason to think that's the case.
At no point has Mr Obama shown the sort of leadership that builds that kind of credibility. When Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, the US president punted a decision to Congress to avoid air strikes; when Saudi Arabia demanded support for rebels in Syria, he refused.
Even this summer, as Isil advanced on Baghdad, Mr Obama was entirely reactive – he did the bare minimum, responding only when the Kurdish portion of Iraq was about to fall to the militants and he had no other choice.
Only now, when the savage beheading of two American journalists has turned US public opinion on its head, does Mr Obama find the courage to launch a broad-based assault on the militants. Until then, he was prepared to let them rampage almost unchecked.
No one is fooled. It is true that three-quarters of Americans now support strikes against Isil – and after all, who wouldn't want to expunge such medieval savagery from the face of the earth? – but those same polls show almost the same number are unhappy with Mr Obama's handling of foreign policy.
This is the track record on which Mr Obama's now finds himself fighting a war – or "anti-terror campaign" as he prefers to call it – that by his own admission has no clear end in sight.
The fact that before the beheadings polls showed that 80 per cent of Americans were not in favour of air strikes suggests that US public commitment to this operation, even with the caveat of "no boots on the ground", is largely skin-deep.
So when the going gets tough and outcomes are uncertain, as they surely will be, Mr Obama, like US presidents before him, will find himself needing to lead his public to a place where they don't instinctively want to be.
The fact that in six years in office Mr Obama has never done that – indeed, has never even tried – makes his task doubly difficult.
Already those acquainted with the workings of the administration, like Frederick Hof, the former State Department special adviser on Syria who resigned in despair at the Obama administration's policy, or lack of it, are expressing doubt that he even means to try.
"If the person in charge gets the authorities and resources he or she needs, this is serious," Mr Hof wrote of Mr Obama's promise to create a "counterweight" to Isil in Syria. "If not, it's a speech: a good one, but not much else."
If the past is any guide to future performance, there is not much reason to believe.
And even the plan smacks of desperation. Only a month ago Mr Obama ridiculed the very idea of arming moderate rebels in Syria as a "fantasy", but now apparently this once silly idea is key to holding Syrian territory when it is recaptured from Isil forces under the cover of US air strikes.
Perhaps Mr Obama would have a shot of dragging his reluctant allies and a war-weary public with him if they really believed that he would brook no other outcome, but this president's track record gives them precious little reason to think that's the case.
At no point has Mr Obama shown the sort of leadership that builds that kind of credibility. When Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, the US president punted a decision to Congress to avoid air strikes; when Saudi Arabia demanded support for rebels in Syria, he refused.
Even this summer, as Isil advanced on Baghdad, Mr Obama was entirely reactive – he did the bare minimum, responding only when the Kurdish portion of Iraq was about to fall to the militants and he had no other choice.
Only now, when the savage beheading of two American journalists has turned US public opinion on its head, does Mr Obama find the courage to launch a broad-based assault on the militants. Until then, he was prepared to let them rampage almost unchecked.
No one is fooled. It is true that three-quarters of Americans now support strikes against Isil – and after all, who wouldn't want to expunge such medieval savagery from the face of the earth? – but those same polls show almost the same number are unhappy with Mr Obama's handling of foreign policy.
This is the track record on which Mr Obama's now finds himself fighting a war – or "anti-terror campaign" as he prefers to call it – that by his own admission has no clear end in sight.
The fact that before the beheadings polls showed that 80 per cent of Americans were not in favour of air strikes suggests that US public commitment to this operation, even with the caveat of "no boots on the ground", is largely skin-deep.
So when the going gets tough and outcomes are uncertain, as they surely will be, Mr Obama, like US presidents before him, will find himself needing to lead his public to a place where they don't instinctively want to be.
The fact that in six years in office Mr Obama has never done that – indeed, has never even tried – makes his task doubly difficult.
Already those acquainted with the workings of the administration, like Frederick Hof, the former State Department special adviser on Syria who resigned in despair at the Obama administration's policy, or lack of it, are expressing doubt that he even means to try.
"If the person in charge gets the authorities and resources he or she needs, this is serious," Mr Hof wrote of Mr Obama's promise to create a "counterweight" to Isil in Syria. "If not, it's a speech: a good one, but not much else."
If the past is any guide to future performance, there is not much reason to believe.
