Obama refuses to face reality

By Jay Ambrose

Tribune News Service

If President Barack Obama had left troops in Iraq, if he had not drawn a red line he then erased, if he had promptly heeded top national security officials advising him early on to arm and train moderate rebels in Syria, would the Islamic State be a lesser concern? Would more people be alive and fewer be refugees? Would Middle East chaos be closer to decency and order?

We can’t know for absolute sure, but highly educated, factually based analyses contend convincingly that different policies would have meant less tragedy so far and less peril down the road. Pointing to more recent, lesser flubs, some analyses also make a case for part of what’s been amiss: a refusal to face reality.

The president once said, for instance, that the Islamic State was a JV team when it has proved to be powerfully effective in fighting, in building a strong financial base and in recruiting. Because some Islamic State ambitions had been militarily quelled in the Middle East, Obama said the group had been contained, other officials said it had not been and the next day it exercised terror in Europe, killing 130.

Then, apparently thinking U.S. intelligence operations could cover all bases, Obama told Americans to feel safe. That was not long before 14 citizens were killed in San Bernardino, Calif., by two terrorists who said on Facebook that same day that they pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Nothing new

So, with all of this and more coming at the world, at America, at him, Obama gave a rare Oval Office speech, vainly attempting to explain why he’s on the right track when so much is going awry, vowing to destroy the Islamic State with nothing new to make it happen and lecturing the American people about sticking to American values when there is little evidence short of a loony politician that we aren’t.

He was right about this much – wanting better screening of certain visas and wanting Congress to authorize military action against the Islamic State as constitutionally demanded if we are to keep fighting. This last item is complicated because a resolution could go further or not as far as some would like, but resolutions can be amended, Congress needs to take responsibility, too, and it’s not so bad an idea to abide by rule of law.

Veering into triviality, a favored trick of his, Obama also called for banning semi-automatic assault weapons that are used in just a tiny percentage of criminal shootings and are no more powerful or quick-firing than many other firearms. Even though the chief argument against them is simply that they look scary, a ban wouldn’t be the end of the world. What it would be is pointless, seeing as how someone denied one could then obtain an even deadlier gun.

The far bigger issue, of course, is that Obama signaled no significant changes that might make crucial differences in the Islamic State fight. He talked about airstrikes but did not say how they could be used to greater effect.

In wrapping the speech up, Obama used a cliche about how “we are on the right side of history,” which is another way of saying it’s inevitable we win. It isn’t. History depends, among other matters, on decisions made along the way, and despite uncertainties, being on target with those decisions is far more likely when you listen to knowledgeable advice, face reality, concede error and change to what works.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service.