index

ISIS continues its march across Iraq by seizing the key Iraqi city of Ramadi; placing the Islamic State virtually 80 miles from Baghdad itself, but if you consider its control of Fallujah they are within forty miles of the capital.

The fall of Ramadi puts President Obama’s ISIS strategy into serious question. It was only a few months ago where the president stated in February, “Our coalition is on the offensive, ISIS is on the defensive, and ISIS is going to lose.” Unfortunately nobody told ISIS about this.”

The Washington Post reported that U.S. airstrikes late last week proved powerless to block a sophisticated Islamic State offensive to capture Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province 80 miles west of Baghdad. Once again, the Islamist terrorists are slaughtering captives and sending civilians fleeing in fear. Once again, they have seized U.S. military equipment, including about 30 vehicles the government sent into Ramadi the day before its fall. Once again, in the absence of more intensive help from the United States, the Iraqi government is turning to Shiite militia and the Iranian armed forces that support them. Iran’s defense minister, Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan, flew into Baghdad on Monday.

Since last September, President Obama stated the strategy of the U.S., will be, “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIS through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”

The apparent aspect is that since last year when ISIS took over large segments of territory across Iraq and Syria, the U.S. lacks a coherent strategy in dealing with the Islamic State, especially as it relates to its sanctuary inside Syria.

Over the weekend U.S. Delta Force commando’s staged a daring raid inside Syria, killing Abu Sayyaf, a key ISIS leader, and capturing his wife and treasure trove of document and computer on how the organization operates.

The unfortunate aspect of this raid, it shows the versatility of the U.S. military, but this was tactical strategy and without a clear coherent political strategy that encompasses how the administration plans on ultimately to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS we will see more cities fall into the orbit of ISIS.

In the same speech the president gave in September he mentioned ISIS is a threat to “The broader Middle East,” including U.S. citizens and facilities, and “if left unchecked. . . could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States.”

It was only back in February the president sent his war authorization in confronting ISIS to the Congress, and three months later the authorization is stalled in the Congress. Republicans and Democrats are against it for different reasons.

Republicans believe it hamstrings military commanders, and Democrats don’t want an unopened war in the Middle East, but neither political party has articulated what is the political strategy for the region. The president seems to want Congress to come up with a strategy on its own, but to get 535 members of both the Senate and the House to devise a strategy is impossible and goes against what the founders of the constitution envisioned.

Foreign policy has always been in placed in the executive branch, as the president is the one individual who conducts and directs U.S. foreign policy. What is missing is leadership from the president.

Lately, especially those running for president in 2016, the debate seems to center on what happened over twelve years ago instead of what is happening now.

The president needs to devise a strategy for how to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS in Syria, but also to include how the U.S. will deal with Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad.

The next aspect is the president needs to deal with Iraq. Much is touted about how the Iraq army trained by the U.S. fled in the face of ISIS advance even though they outnumbered the Islamic State fighters. Everyone needs to understand that the Iraqi Army is not the same force trained by the U.S. it has been reshaped with all competent military commanders removed in favor of less competent commanders, but who’s loyalties are to the Shiite government in Baghdad.

Sunni allies will not work with the U.S. as they see first-hand Iranian support and influence with the Shiite dominated government in Baghdad. If Baghdad wants to retake Ramadi it will more than likely be sending in Shia militia’s, which would only make the situation worse.

The other aspect all the other Sunni nations in the region are angered by the presidents Middle East strategy since 2009, plus its continued nuclear negotiations with Iran, virtually allowing them to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact.

These nations fear less from ISIS then they do Iran being a hegemonic power in the region, all the while the U.S. takes a passive approach.

The president has to be more engaged or the situation will only get much worse.