Obama: That's it, we're going to 'degrade and destroy' ISIS

The words sound right:

---

The United States plans to fight Islamic State until it is no longer a force in the Middle East and will seek justice for the killing of American journalist Steven Sotloff, President Barack Obama said on Wednesday. He added destroying the militant group will take time because of the power vacuum in Syria, the abundance of battle hardened fighters that grew out of al-Qaeda in the Iraqi war, and the need to build coalitions, including with local Sunni communities. Islamic State released a video on Tuesday showing the beheading of the U.S. journalist, the second American hostage to be killed within weeks, in retaliation for U.S. air strikes in Iraq. “The bottom line is this, our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy (Islamic State) so that it’s no longer a threat not just to Iraq but also the region and to the United States," Obama told a news conference. “Whatever these murderers think they will achieve with killing innocent Americans like Steven, they have already failed," Obama said. "They failed because, like people around the world, Americans are repulsed by their barbarism. We will not be intimidated."

---

---

You want to believe he means it, but it's hard to escape the suspicion that this time he felt the need to go overboard in his bellicosity to make up for his denounce-and-go-golfing performance after the murder of James Foley. I bolded the part in the second paragraph about the mission taking time because it harkens back to Donald Rumsfeld warning everyone that the War on Terror would be a "long, hard slog." It was Rummy's way of preparing a nation that had become programmed by people-pleasing politicians to expect quick, pinprick attacks that were announced as huge successes, after which we could all immediately get back to watching Orange Is The New Black or whatever. This turned out to be the very thing that Democrats played into electoral success in 2006 and 2008, as the nation accepted the long-term nature of the effort for awhile, but eventually lost its nerve and started listening to nonsense about how Democrats would instead use "smart power" or whatever. Does Obama now accept that the United States has no choice but to go after its enemies with abandon? Is he prepared to commit the manpower and firepower necessary? Is he prepared to risk upsetting the princes and emirs of the Arab world? Is he ready to defend the effort when we suffer a setback, make a mistake, accidentally kill civilians, or find that the limited parameters of the mission were unrealistic and we have to do more than we originally thought? Because George W. Bush understood all that and was willing to risk his political capital to get the job done. It was Barack Obama who came along and took advantage politically. Is Obama now prepared to exercise the same courage in the service of principle? What do you think? Now he did announce yesterday that he's sending 350 ground troops to Iraq, which forces him to backtrack from his all-too-recent promise of never putting boots on the ground there again. Of course, he insists they will be in a non-combat role, only charged with protecting the U.S. Embassy and the Baghdad Airport. Then again, whether our troops have to engage in combat is not entirely up to us, is it? It seems to me that ISIS will have something to say about that. And how exactly are we supposed to "degrade and destroy" them if we send in troops with instructions not to engage in combat? None of this makes any sense, and probably the best we can say is that we know Obama's making it up as he goes along - he's already told us he doesn't have a strategy - so whatever he says today will surely be inoperative tomorrow. That's what passes as a reassuring observation with this administration.

---