Throughout the summer, a constant flow of foreign crises spread throughout the world: from the Israel-Palestinian War, to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, to the spread of Ebola in West Africa. But none have been as significant to the United States as the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). President Barack Obama has been slow to assertively act — or at least slow to respond — bringing into question the Obama Doctrine of nonintervention and its ability to truly deal with international conflict.
The militant group ISIS is ravaging cities throughout Iraq and Syria, ethnically cleansing by the thousands and growing a militia as large as 31,500 according to recent CIA estimates. It poses a threat to the U.S. not only by recruiting American citizens to fight, but in executing our journalists.
Like many Americans, I am frightened by the prospect of American boots on the ground after witnessing America’s longest war occur on Iraqi soil, but I agree that the threat of ISIS is larger than this fear. Earlier in the summer, public opinion was against intervention in Iraq, framing ISIS’s rise as a problem for the Iraqi army, the entity we had spent so long training. Earlier this year in a New Yorker interview, the president wrote off ISIS as a “JV team”: A view which, at the time, aligned with that of the American population. It wasn’t until a shift in public opinion, prompted by the unfortunate execution of American journalists, that the president authorized broad military campaign against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.
This tactical move does not follow the comments the president has made throughout his tenure. He’s worked to promote a doctrine of avoidance, staying out of foreign conflicts and selectively granting support where needed.
Such a sudden change indicates president felt too politically frightened of military intervention in Iraq for months, until the American public moved the needle on the issue. It’s not a matter of flip-flopping on issues, but admitting to supporting an interventionist policy all along. Being a politician isn’t easy, especially a democratic president, polling at 40 percent approval, with more than half of Congress and the talking heads of cable news pushing against him. With a midterm election coming up and fundraisers to attend, it is hard to be frank with voters.
The president has a history of waiting until an issue is politically acceptable to demonstrate his support on both domestic and foreign issues, such as immigration and gay marriage. And now the White House is playing defense with his previous remark referring to ISIS as a “JV team,” claiming it was taken out of context. The president is brilliant in being able to analyze and break down foreign policy, but what he has a hard time doing is simplifying it for the American people and using the right words to do so.
With this in mind, it feels as if he’s slow to respond to situations, not only to gauge a threat, but also to gauge public reaction, and that seems to be the true Obama Doctrine. Throughout multiple presidencies, nonintervention has appeared to be the most politically advantageous answer to conflict, as the American public loves to criticize our role abroad and whether foreign wars are worth the tax money. Through his reaction to the ISIS situation, the president has revealed himself to be much like his predecessors: only willing to budge when necessary and politically acceptable.