First Posted: 2/15/2015
FEBRUARY 12, 2015 — President Barack Obama’s suggestion Wednesday that he would be amenable to “limited” deployment of U.S. ground troops to combat the so-called Islamic State signals a change of tone from the commander in chief that he may be starting to take the threat of the Islamist group more seriously than his previous rhetoric had suggested.
But consideration of deployment must be accompanied by a clear and systematic approach to military engagement, one that has yet to be articulated by the president. History teaches us that an armed conflict that ostensibly begins as limited all too often escalates. So it is unsurprising that many, if not most, Americans are wary of this nation slouching toward its third war in this young century.
To his credit, on Wednesday, Obama submitted to Congress a letter seeking formal authorization for using military force, rather than attempting to do so by presidential directive. This should prompt congressional debate on what ought to be done.
The Islamic State’s army of about 31,500, according to a CIA estimate this past fall, “poses a threat to the people and stability of Iraq, Syria and the broader Middle East, and to U.S. national security,” Obama warned.
But still, if there is to be war, if America’s sons and daughters in uniform are to be ordered into battle yet again, Obama must begin to acknowledge the true threat of the Islamic State and its worldview, as well as whence it stems. Word choices matter.
Obama has dismissed many Islamic State atrocities as one-off terrorist attacks when, in fact, it is much more than a mere splinter group: It has a standing army. It controls significant land mass. And its forces have motivation to wage a global religious war.
It is not a group with which to trifle. The president must describe it as such, and address the challenge appropriately before the Islamic State gains additional strength and resources to wreak havoc more broadly. As of now, his signals are mixed.
Obama told lawmakers his draft AUMF would not authorize “long-term, large-scale ground operations,” such as those undertaken by his predecessor in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
He also said he would deploy troops only under such circumstances as “rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel” or “use of special operation forces” to take out the Islamic State leadership.
It remains to be seen whether Obama elicits the bipartisan support for his proposed AUMF that he seeks. In the meantime, we take comfort in the signals from Capitol Hill that neither Republicans nor Democrats will rubber-stamp the president’s request to use force.
