It is eerily appropriate that President Obama will address the nation Wednesday on his plans to combat the Islamic State, just hours before the anniversary of 9/11. Thirteen years after the attacks on America by al-Qaeda operatives, the United States is still punching back at Islamic extremists.
In 2001, the radical Taliban controlled Afghanistan and provided a safe haven for al-Qaeda. Today Islamists of an equally radical bent have fashioned a state that includes portions of Syria and Iraq, a territory from which they persecute minorities and Shiite Muslims and behead unfortunate captives with a barbarity that disgusts every civilized conscience.
In 2001 this newspaper supported U.S. attacks to overthrow the Taliban and track down the perpetrators of the 9/11 massacres. But whether Obama can make a similarly compelling case for a lengthy commitment “to defeat” the Islamic State — his words on “Meet the Press” Sunday — is another question. We’re skeptical.
It’s one thing to commit this nation to protecting beleaguered minorities or containing a regime so it doesn’t overrun Kurdistan or Baghdad. But the president has evidently chosen a more ambitious course — one that Secretary of State John Kerry says could take years to complete, meaning it would extend beyond the president’s term.
The United States should of course strike at any state or group that poses an imminent domestic threat. But what is the threat from the Islamic State? Radical jihadists often yearn to strike at the West, but that was true before 9/11 and will be the case for decades to come.
And how will the U.S. control the nature of the governments that replace the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq?
If we have learned anything from the past 13 years, surely it is that this nation cannot possibly eradicate all jihadists or their safe havens — let alone control the ebb and flow of politics in the Middle East. The president promises no ground troops, but watch for an ever-expanding contingent of advisers and military trainers to get the job done.
Admittedly, it’s possible Obama will identify a direct threat when he explains his policy this week. But unless he does, a full-scale commitment to defeating the Islamic State is hard to justify.
This is not a call for isolationism. As President Bush said on Sept. 20, 2001, “Americans should not expect one battle” against the enemies of Western democracy, “but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen.”
But that lengthy campaign must be fought prudently or it can snowball into unpleasant surprises — as Bush himself discovered in the years to come.
