Obama authorizes U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq

The brutality of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has finally reached the point where even Barack Obama feels the need to do something about it. That has to be pretty brutal. And it is:

---

In late-night remarks televised from the White House to a war-weary American public, Obama insisted he would not commit ground forces and had no intention of letting the United States "get dragged into fighting another war in Iraq." Obama took action amid international fears of a humanitarian catastrophe engulfing tens of thousands of members of Iraq’s minority Yazidi sect driven out of their homes and stranded on Sinjar mountain under threat from rampaging militants of Islamic State, an al Qaeda splinter group. Many Iraqi Christians have also fled for their lives. "We can act carefully and responsibly to prevent a potential act of genocide," said Obama, who described the militants as "barbaric." Obama was responding to urgent appeals from Iraqi and Kurdish authorities to help halt Islamic State's relentless advance across northern Iraq and to deal with the unfolding humanitarian crisis. However, questions were quickly raised in Washington about whether selective U.S. attacks on militant positions and humanitarian airdrops would be enough to shift the balance on the battlefield against the Islamist forces.

Here is Obama's announcement: Taking action now against ISIS is the right thing to do, but the situation should never have been allowed to get this far out of control. The graphic below shows just how much of Iraq ISIS now controls (ISIS-controlled areas in pink). This has all happened since January while the U.S. has dithered on the sidelines: Obama authorizes U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq That tiny little white square around Bagdgad is getting more precarious every day, as we hear more reports of beheadings and helpless people fleeing to the only place they can go - the top of a mountain where they can't get any food or water. It's a very good thing that the U.S. is going to airdrop supplies to them, and maybe, ultimately, get them the heck out of there. But how did Obama not understand this would happen without a status of forces agreement that would have kept U.S. troops in Iraq? Actually we all know the answer to that. He didn't care. Obama's primary objective with respect to Iraq was always to just get out. He was serving the Democrat narrative in place since at least 2004 when it became politically useful to bash the Iraq War as a hammer against George W. Bush. Obama got elected in large part on the promise to end the war and never return, and he couldn't square that politically with a status of force agreement that would keep a U.S. presence in Iraq - even though we have such agreements with more than 100 countries around the globe. The Wall Street Journal notes that this latest move in Iraq is typical of Obama's attempt to resist the use of American power while appearing resolute when he absolutely has to - a disturbing pattern our allies have noticed to their chagrin:

"I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home," he said. "I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq, so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq." In every military decision Mr. Obama has faced since taking office, people in the room say the burden of proof lies heavily with officials advocating the use of force. Mr. Obama pulled back at the last minute on U.S. military strikes against Syria last summer in response to President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons, a move he previously said would cross a "red line." Repercussions from that decision have rippled across the globe. U.S. allies have questioned whether the U.S. would continue to back them, and the president since has had to personally reassure leaders from Europe to the Middle East and Asia as to America's steadfastness. His decision Thursday—to authorize but not order strikes—fits a pattern. In Afghanistan, Mr. Obama announced a surge in 2009 that was larger than his liberal supporters wanted, but his withdrawal timetable was criticized by Republicans.

Note that last paragraph: He authorizes strikes but does not order them. It's his way of saying, hey, it wasn't really my decision. This is why he goes to such pains to emphasize that we will not put boots back on the ground. He's giving comfort to ISIS when he says that, but his greater concern is to make sure voters don't think we're going back to war - especially his political base, which is vehemently opposed to it no matter what the stakes. Obama often makes mention of the fact that he promised to end the Iraq War and he did. If he rejoins the battle now, he gives up what he sees as one of the most solid parts of his legacy - and that is clearly more important to him than stopping ISIS from controlling an oil-rich ally that three years ago appeared to be on its way to democratic stability. We should all pray that these airstrikes succeed, and that the United States soon has more clear-headed leadership that understands what it means to be the leader of the free world.