海角大神

In presenting to the American people his strategy for 鈥渄egrading and ultimately destroying鈥� the Islamic State (IS), President Obama essentially launched what he came into office pledging to get the United States out of: an open-ended military campaign in the Middle East.

Perhaps because he was declaring the kind of action he once vowed to end, the president strove in his 15-minute White House address Wednesday night to differentiate this new battle with terrorists 鈥渦nique in their brutality鈥� from the wars he inherited, in particular the war in Iraq.

This war will entail no US combat forces on the ground, Mr. Obama said 鈥� although he did announce 475 more military advisers for Iraq, which will bring the total there to about 1,600. He also underscored that no military assignment, including the pilots carrying out airstrikes against IS positions, is guaranteed risk-free.

Second, this campaign will not be America going it alone, he said, but the US joined in every aspect of the anti-IS strategy by a 鈥渂road coalition of partners.鈥� This includes, in particular, Sunni Arab nations that can help 鈥渕obilize鈥� the Sunni populations of Syria against IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

But while Obama laid out a four-part strategy for 鈥渞olling back鈥� and defeating IS, he evoked an intervention rationale that also places a priority on the humanitarian reasons for undertaking this fight and the moral dimension of America鈥檚 engagement.

Noting he was speaking on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Obama said it is only America that has 鈥渢he capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists鈥� and 鈥渙n behalf of [a] common humanity.鈥� He told the story of a Yazidi Iraqi man who said, once his IS-threatened family was safe thanks to US intervention, that 鈥渙ur children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.鈥�

Obama then told Americans, 鈥淭hat is the difference we make in the world.鈥�

The emphasis Obama placed on the humanitarian and ideological grounds for this intervention 鈥� he also said that 鈥淚SIL is not Muslim鈥� and that 鈥渕ost of its victims are Muslims鈥� 鈥� is a welcome surprise to some foreign policy analysts.

鈥淭his is an ideological battle against Muslim fundamentalism and radical jihadism, so it鈥檚 not just important to fight the terrorists but to take on the fundamentalist ideology,鈥� says Karima Bennoune, a professor of international law at the University of California, Davis, and an expert on Muslims鈥� confrontation with fundamentalism.

Saying that limiting the strategy for addressing the IS threat to military intervention would be 鈥渟hortsighted and a significant mistake,鈥� Professor Bennoune says she thinks Obama 鈥済ets it,鈥� but that he has to emphasize the threat that America would face from an IS left unchecked by US military force to rally public support.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a conundrum for the president,鈥� says Bennoune, author of 鈥淵our Fatwa Does Not Apply Here,鈥� a study of Muslim responses to fundamentalism in 30 countries. 鈥淭o get the support of war-weary Americans, he has to play up the terrorist threat, but the real need is to address this by strengthening Muslim communities.鈥�

For others, though, Obama鈥檚 strategy in its essence is no different from what has guided the war on terrorism since the aftermath of 9/11.

鈥淭his is absolutely a continuation of the long war,鈥� says Andrew Bacevich, a professor emeritus at Boston University and national security expert prominent for his criticism of America鈥檚 Middle East wars. 鈥淲hether or not the effort to defeat ISIS succeeds, this new intervention is not going to bring the long war to an end.鈥�

Obama is following a familiar pattern of 鈥渦se force or don鈥檛 act,鈥� Professor Bacevich says, but he adds that force did not work in Afghanistan or Iraq and that it won鈥檛 address the roots of a challenge like IS.

鈥淩elying on force to do what 鈥� bring stability to, democratize, pacify, and make friends with the Islamic world 鈥� does not seem with experience to offer anything in the way of a remedy,鈥� he says. 鈥淢ilitary action is not going to solve the larger problem of the conflict between traditional forms of Islam and a world tending increasingly towards secular modernity.鈥�

Bacevich, who says he is not advocating inaction, insists there is a moral argument to be made for intervention against IS 鈥� but that is not what he sees Obama doing. 鈥淗is argument is that ISIS poses a clear threat to the United States,鈥� he says, 鈥渁nd that鈥檚 wrong.鈥�

What stands out to others in Obama鈥檚 strategy is its emphasis on counterterrorism tactics of the sort the US has used in Yemen and Somalia 鈥渇or years,鈥� as Obama said.

鈥淚 liken the situation today to the end of 2009, when we had the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit鈥� by a terrorist trained by the Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, says Brian Katulis, a senior fellow and expert in national security policy in the Middle East at the Center for American Progress in Washington.

That bombing near-miss 鈥渓ed to a much more aggressive stance towards Al Qaeda,鈥� he says. 鈥淚n a similar way, the shocking advances of ISIS, topped by the atrocious murders of two Americans, are now prompting this much more assertive stance towards this problem.鈥�

In his address, Obama underscored his duty as commander in chief to protect the American people, citing what he said is a 鈥渃ore principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.鈥�

Mr. Katulis says that after a period of 鈥渄isarray鈥� this summer in the administration鈥檚 approach to IS and its provocations, it now appears that the 鈥渃larity鈥� of the threat IS poses and the 鈥渆vil鈥� it represents have galvanized the president 鈥� and broadened the administration鈥檚 arguments for intervention.

鈥淚t鈥檚 led the administration back to this notion of 鈥榯he battle of ideas鈥� a little bit,鈥� Katulis says. Still, he laments how a cautious president is still 鈥渂ehind the curve鈥� in matching Americans鈥� rising clamor for action 鈥� and he sees a reluctance to deliver the justification for intervention he says the situation demands.

鈥淚 still don鈥檛 see a full-throated defense and explanation of the moral basis for addressing these extremists and their actions,鈥� he says.