• Home>
• Issues

It has been more than three years since President Obama called on Syrian President Assad “to step aside.” It has been more than two years since then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was only “a matter of time” before the Assad regime fell. Because they did not back up those words by supporting the moderate opposition in Syria in a meaningful way, many in the region have thrown their support to the ISIS terrorist group.

President Obama has said, “our objective is clear, and that is to degrade and destroy [ISIS].” Secretary of State John Kerry has said ISIS “must be destroyed.” ISIS is not going to self-destruct. It will require action. President Obama must lead a global coalition to bridge the chasm between his rhetoric and reality.

1. Public Support: This begins with the president describing in the speech he will give tomorrow the threat ISIS poses and what he will do to counter that threat. This is the first step in securing the support of the American people for the actions to be taken. Describing the threat should be simple, since Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has said this group is “an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else,” and “is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen.” Given the group’s stated interest in attacking the West, it would be national security malpractice not to take action to prevent that.

2. Diplomacy: The ultimate end of ISIS will come about when Syria and Iraq form governments that include a broad range of ethnic groups and respect all people’s rights. Only then will those countries’ people support their governments instead of the terrorist group. The United States must support the formation of such governments.

As part of that support, the Obama administration must lead the countries in the region to back an inclusive Iraqi government rather than feed the sectarian violence. America’s friends and partners are looking to the United States for leadership, and instead they see abdication and absence. As the Washington Post noted in a story on August 28, governments in the region have “expressed an eagerness to follow the U.S. lead in Syria ... [but] have repeatedly expressed concern over the past three years of Syria’s civil war at what they’ve seen as administration reluctance to assert strong leadership in support of moderate rebels battling the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”

3. Arms and Intelligence Assistance: The United States should increase arms and intelligence assistance to the Iraqi government and its security forces. This will help the Iraqis better understand the ISIS threat and take steps to combat it, such as attacking ISIS command and control points, and cutting communication and supply lines. ISIS poses a forceful threat to U.S. interests, so any strategy to deal with it must continue with a military component. As of September 8, the United States had conducted 148 airstrikes across Iraq. These have stalled the group’s momentum and must be continued or increased. The group’s gains need to be rolled back, as it is their military success that brings converts to their side.

Moreover, the ISIS threat is not restricted to Iraq. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said on August 21, ISIS cannot be defeated without addressing the part of the organization that resides in Syria. ISIS does not respect the Iraq-Syria border.

4. Assistance to Syrian Opposition: It is long past time for the United States to train, arm, and further support the mainstream opposition groups in Syria. If this had been done earlier – like when President Obama said it was time for Assad to go – perhaps the people of Syria would have supported these opposition groups rather than ISIS. The departure of Assad need not result in a jihadist government in Syria.

As former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford said in an interview with PBS on June 3: “[W]e have long needed to help moderates in the Syrian opposition with both weapons and other nonlethal assistance. Had we done that a couple of years ago ... the al Qaeda groups that have been winning adherents would have been unable to compete with the moderates. ... But the moderates have been fighting constantly with arms tied behind their backs, because they don’t have the same resources that either Assad does or the al Qaeda groups in Syria do.”

5. Financial Support: According to an August 28 Wall Street Journal report, ISIS has “self-sustaining” methods of financing its existence and operation. These include theft, extortion, and taking hostages for ransom; sales from oil and gas fields under its control; and donations. The U.S. must lead global efforts to choke off financing of this group and implement the requirement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2170 to “ensure that no funds, financial assets or economic resources are made available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of [ISIS].”

6. Congressional Support: President Obama said on August 8 that military operations were needed to protect American citizens and facilities in Iraq, and to provide humanitarian assistance to endangered Iraqis. He went on to say those operations would be limited in duration and scope.

If the president were to move beyond these limited objectives and instead act to degrade and destroy ISIS, he should consult with Congress and seek its formal support. The objective of eliminating ISIS would no longer be as limited in scope, and achieving it would necessarily require continued action that would probably be far less limited in duration. It will likely require expanded and sustained military action that would move beyond the previous actions in Iraq. Any expansion of the scope and duration of military activities abroad in this instance would be viewed with greater legitimacy at home if the president first gets congressional backing.

Although the president likely has the authority to take expanded action against ISIS in the self-defense of the nation on his own constitutional authority, he should seek the support of the American people for such actions because the nation is at its strongest in these matters when the political branches of government act together. As Senator Obama told the Boston Globe in an interview published December 20, 2007: “History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.”

The rise of ISIS is the most recent data point disproving Obama administration suggestions that Islamist terrorism and its threat to the United States are receding. Combating ISIS will require much more than a few speeches and leading from behind. Secretary of Defense Hagel has said ISIS “poses a long-term threat,” and the President must treat it as such. He must put forth a strategy, seek the support of the American people through their elected representatives, and devote his sustained personal attention to carrying it out.