Obama and ISIL – Too Little Too Late?

A member loyal to the ISIL waves an ISIL flag in RaqqaNow that President Obama has finally decided to act, and bombing of the Islamic terrorist organization ISIL is underway, Americans are asking, “Is this too little, too late?”
Although most Americans were unaware until this summer of the existence of ISIL as a specific terror group, the West Point Counterrorism Center said in a recent report, “ISIL did not suddenly become effective in early June 2014: it had been steadily strengthening and actively shaping the future operating environment for four years.” The Obama administration has certainly been following the growth of ISIL during that period of time.
The report goes on to state that ISIL was “re-booted” in 2010 by leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Since 2012 it has developed “a highly-motivated cadre of light infantry forces.” The group orchestrated a series of major attacks in multiple cities throughout 2013. ISIL has been aided by “the unpreparedness of its enemies,” the report continues. Furthermore, the West Point Center made note ISIL is incorporating “whole networks of militants into its ranks.”
Nevertheless, as recently as July, the administration rejected requests from the Kurdish military for assistance in fighting the militants. Even as reports spread of brutal attacks upon Christians and other minority groups, the President hesitated. Finally, in early August, Obama authorized bombing raids to facilitate the rescue of twenty thousand Yazidi civilians, including women and children, who were stranded on a mountaintop without food or water.
Then, on August 19, the problem became impossible to ignore. ISIL released a video showing the beheading of American reporter James Foley (followed on September 2 by another video of the beheading of a second American, Steven Sotloff). Many Americans were stunned to hear the President say in an August 28th press conference, “We don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with the militant threat.
Obama has now developed a strategy, which he presented to the United Nations in perhaps the first clear foreign policy statement of his tenure. America, joined by as many allies as it can persuade to participate, is dedicated to degrading and destroying the capability of ISIL to continue to wreak havoc in the area or to present a threat to Europe or the United States. We will bomb ISIL in Iraq and Syria. We will provide more military advisors to the Iraqi government, and we will supply and train the moderate rebels in Syria, but we will not send troops into combat.
Here are some of the questions Americans are asking: Will thispolicy work? In particular, do the Iraqis have the will and capability to beat ISIL on the ground in Iraq? How do we identify the moderate Syrian opposition? If we are fighting ISIL, that leaves Assad free to concentrate on squashing the moderates. How can we expect them to fight on two fronts?
Does it make sense to risk the lives of our pilots and advisors without a clear timeline and exit strategy? Obama himself acknowledges this fight could go on for years. Should we even be in this fight, and if we agree we should, doesn’t it make more sense to commit completely, to go in planning to win?