The Obama administration’s apparent indecision about what to do with ISIS, the terrorist army rampaging in Northern Iraq and Syria, has drawn bipartisan fire from Congress. On Sunday's "Meet the Press" Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Ca, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, termed Obama’s approach as “to cautious.” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that Obama’s foreign policy is in “free fall” and that it is affecting not only the Middle East, but relations with Russia and China as well.
Obama is headed for Europe this week to attend a NATO summit at which he hopes to cobble together some sort of coalition to help deal with ISIS in the Middle East, as well as Russia, which is conducting fresh incursions into the Ukraine. But this comes at the heels of a press conference in which the president announced that he had no strategy for dealing with ISIS This situation seems to be the result of infighting within the White House and the national security apparatus.
In effect the president may, by default, find himself “leading from behind” once again, a stance that did not work out very well in Libya. It is not as if there are no options for dealing with ISIS. They include expanding the bombing campaign to Syria and intensifying it, arming local allies such as the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army, and even the judicial use of special ops troops as the situation calls for it.
Interesting enough, the American people seem to be becoming more resolute where it comes to dealing with ISIS. A recent poll suggests that Americans favor military action against the terrorists by a four to one margin. That suggests that the tendency of ISIS toward beheading children, selling women into sexual bondage, and general mayhem and genocide has awakened American from its isolationist torpor. Whether the president will wake up remains to be seen.