I am sure by now we are growing weary of hearing about ISIS, but they don’t seem to be going away any time soon. President Obama admits to his administration underestimating the Islamic State militant group, which at this point has taken control of large portions of land in the Middle East. Rather than taking responsibility, Obama points to the Iraqi Army for faltering in strength and willpower for the rise in these militant groups. This is despite critics repeatedly pointing to his previous comments that characterized groups like ISIS as “JV teams” in comparison to other terrorist threats. He instead blames prime minister Maliki as being more interested in “consolidating his Shia base.”
Many critics contend that his decision to pull all American troops out of Iraq in 2011 and his lack of more direct interference in the Syrian civil war is a strong reason that the region has become “ground zero for jihadists around the world.” Obama denies this and said that when Americans left, they had left Iraq with all the proper tools necessary to prosper: an intact democracy and equipped military. However, while ISIS has surprised officials, Syria still is regarded as the “more challenging situation.” To what extent do we collaborate with Arab nations to counter the ISIS movement and to what extent do we instead focus on the tyrannical regime of Syrian President Al-Assad?
There remain many concerns with the inconsistent methods of Obama, according to Democrat Senator Timothy Kaine. Whatever the choices, Obama’s decision to act unilaterally raises many questions, as it has for many years through more than one presidency. The real irony is that he ran on the campaign that “the president cannot unilaterally start a war without Congress.” It seems to be an act of naivety to claim this in the beginning; as one becomes accustoms to the realities of wasted time and partisan disagreement, more and more frequently presidents seem to forgo the established methods of checks and balances.