Americans can only pray that President Obama was as serious as a drone strike when he vowed the United States would “see that justice is done” for the beheading of American journalist James Foley.
While his anger was palpable, Obama’s resolve to rain death on the savages of ISIS was far from clear. Worse, he signaled disdain for the gravity of the moment by going from the presidential podium straight to a vacation round of golf.
The country deserved better from its reluctant-warrior commander in chief. So, too, Foley’s family. So, too, the family of Steven Sotloff, a second American journalist held by ISIS. So, too, the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians facing murderous barbarity.
You had to examine Obama’s words closely to find a ray of hope that he would deliver on promised justice — not today or tomorrow but, maybe, after building an internationally sanctioned campaign. As he remarked, “we act against (ISIS), standing alongside others.”
Obama’s stance appeared to hearken back to the ground rules he set on joining the 2011 drive to stop the late Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy from annihilating thousands: first, an urgent humanitarian threat; second, a multi-national coalition and third, a doable mission.
On the first count, the President vividly described the horrors committed daily by ISIS:
“They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery.
“They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.”
On the second count, the President called for “governments and peoples across the Middle East” to join “a common effort to extract this cancer, so that it does not spread.”
Yes, it would be nice to see Islamic states at our side as we take the fight to ISIS, if only to transform the battle from one pitting the U.S. against Sunnis into one of Muslims against maniacs. But no one has ever seen such a coalition of the crescent.
So, unfortunately, doubts about Obama’s intentions are real. To his credit, the President authorized bombing strikes against ISIS to prevent the group from killing thousands of Yazidis. Properly, he has kept up the offensive after Foley’s beheading and in the face of a threat that Sotloff would be next to die.
He has presented the American campaign so far as saving innocent lives, protecting U.S. personnel and aiding Iraqi forces in combatting ISIS. While the drive has scored victories, the mission demands have now changed dramatically.
Staying the course is not an option.
The President is obligated to vindicate the national honor while making mortally clear that an attack on one U.S. citizen is an attack on all.
Because, make no mistake, rich with stolen millions, equipped with seized weaponry, drawing thousands of fanatical recruits — including some Americans — and in control of vast territories, ISIS seeks to attack the U.S. homeland.
![In a narrow vote this week, the Federal Trade Commission approved a rule that will ban the vast majority of noncompete clauses by U.S. employers, which have long prevented workers from switching jobs or setting out on their own. In doing so, the agency did its duty to protect American economic dynamism and opportunity, nothing less, nothing more. We hope that’s the clear conclusion of the courts that will now rule on a lawsuit being brought by the Chamber of Commerce, which has strenuously supported this anticompetitive practice. Of the arguments that the business group and other opponents have rolled […]](https://www.nydailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/GettyImages-1820955015.jpg?w=490 "In a narrow vote this week, the Federal Trade Commission approved a rule that will ban the vast majority of noncompete clauses by U.S. employers, which have long prevented workers from switching jobs or setting out on their own. In doing so, the agency did its duty to protect American economic dynamism and opportunity, nothing less, nothing more. We hope that’s the clear conclusion of the courts that will now rule on a lawsuit being brought by the Chamber of Commerce, which has strenuously supported this anticompetitive practice. Of the arguments that the business group and other opponents have rolled […]")
