Boston Globe: ‘Obama’s calm approach on ISIS will keep America safer’

President Obama delivered a prime-time address from the White House about the US response to Islamic State terrorists. - GETTY IMAGES
President Obama delivered a prime-time address from the White House about the US response to Islamic State terrorists. – getty images

A new crisis in the Middle East has forced President Obama into a delicate balancing act. His speech on Wednesday was an effort to reassure Americans that he will do everything possible to crush the Islamic State terrorist group — while at the same time keep the country out of war.

Much criticism of Obama’s supposed foreign policy weakness stems from the fact that he seems cool when we want him to panic. In the 1950s, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said Communism posed “not only the gravest threat ever faced by the United States, but the greatest threat that has ever faced what we call Western civilization.” More recently, President George W. Bush told Americans that the 9/11 attacks represented a threat so enormous that we had to plunge into foreign wars that cost tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. That is how some Americans want Obama to depict the ISIS threat. He refused to do that.

Instead he spoke in measured phrases, recognizing the emergence of a new danger but not exaggerating it. Rather than warn of mortal peril, he said he was “more confident than ever about our country’s future.”

Perhaps he would mobilize the nation more fully and win bigger headlines if he warned, like Governor Rick Perry of Texas, that ISIS terrorists might be sneaking across the Mexican border at this very moment. Instead of pledging to “roll back” the ISIS threat, he might have promised to pursue every militant to the gates of hell, starting tomorrow. That kind of rhetoric plays well in Washington.

It also makes presidents more popular. Obama could probably win points in opinion polls by telling Americans that we are in imminent danger. Instead he said only that ISIS “could pose” a threat in the future. He called not for a massive attack but a “steady, relentless effort” to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the militant group.

Obama also said he would act following “consultations” with Congress — not after asking its permission. That may provoke muttering in Washington, but, in fact, it is a relief to most members of Congress. They don’t want to vote for war in case it goes badly, or against it lest they appear weak. In their hearts, nearly all are happy to let Obama take the political risk.

It is difficult to hear our President gently remind us, “We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world.” It challenges ideas of American power that are part of our collective psyche. Yet too many of our interventions in the Middle East have been aimed largely at fixing the messes left by our previous interventions. Obama signaled that he wants to pull the United States out of that cycle.

Our next president will almost certainly be angrier, more aggressive, and — above all — more disposed to shout and threaten in ways that stir our combative patriotism. Obama might be doing that himself if he faced reelection. Liberated from electoral pressure, he does not feel the need to respond to the relentless news cycle. That frustrates some in Washington, but we are all safer for it.

Stephen Kinzer is a visiting fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.

2 Responses

  1. William Rau
    William Rau at | | Reply

    It is comforting to note that outside the Beltway and the constant cacaphony of instantaneous news, some voices of reality still prevail. Let us hope there are more like you, Mr. Kinzer.

  2. Robert shea
    Robert shea at | | Reply

    I’m currently reading your book, The Brothers. This Globe column reflects the rarely mentioned historical context you so diligently and thoughtfully present in that book. I look forward to reading more of your work.
    Thank you for your work, Mr. Kinzer.

Leave a Reply