From the irresolute desk

In last week’s State of the Union Address, President Obama used his strongest rhetoric yet, describing ISIS as a “direct threat to our people,” a noted contrast from his muted tone in last month’s Oval Office speech. But the president qualified his point of view by noting that, “over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands.” He even went so far as to expressly articulate that ISIS, “does not threaten our national existence.” The president’s remarks hint at a changing attitude, one of resignation from the “stay the course” strategy he articulated last month. His words indicate a growing realization on his part that lofty theoretical policies do not address public concern. And while I applaud the small steps the president has taken to articulate his vision, he needs to do much more.

In a recent article attempting to explain why the president refuses to treat ISIS as a serious threat, The Atlantic hypothesized that he does not see them as a geopolitical adversary in the classical sense. In contrast with the Communist-spreading strategy of the Soviet Union, ISIS does not threaten the ideological foundation of the United States. Although ISIS certainly has the potential to make life unpleasant for a while, the article notes that the president’s attention is focused on other geopolitical issues.

The underlying assumption, which the article does not make explicit, is that the president sees other issues as more pressing than fighting ISIS. Specifically, the president evaluates climate change as the most important geopolitical threat, a belief supported by his recent emphasis on the Paris climate change discussions. Evidence of the administration’s emphasis on climate change as the preeminent threat emerged as early as 2012, and it has continued to play a critical role in the years since. Also, China likely ranks higher than ISIS on the president’s threat list, as evidenced by his “repositioning” in Asia and more recently the TPP negotiations.

Although thinking in terms of absolute priorities makes our analysis easier, the president’s strategy is likely more nuanced than simple threat calculations. Even the president acknowledges that an ISIS armed with a chemical or biological weapon presents a serious problem, but he seems to believe he has found a way to thread the needle without tipping the scale too far toward or against American re-involvement in Iraq and or Syria. By maintaining special forces presence in the region and continuing to arm Syrian rebel groups, the president believes he can keep ISIS contained in its current state. ISIS has the potential to carry out relatively small attacks against western countries, but it is not large enough to conduct a mass attack. In the mean time, the president can use his remaining year in office to secure a successful climate change policy and position the U.S. well in Asia.

If the president does, in fact, adhere to that calculation, he has not made a strong enough case to the American people in support of his strategy. The sense of fear is palpable across the country. Of course, elections tend to heighten uncertainty, but the country feels a trend towards more insecurity, and the president has not sufficiently responded. The very fact that he felt the need to speak from the Oval Office on terrorism alone last month demonstrates that the president too senses the public’s frustration. Nonetheless, he continues to emphasize the current strategy without providing a logical justification for why he thinks the way he does.

Former administration officials seem to demonstrate a rift between the president and the rest of his administration over how to address ISIS. In a recent talk on campus, former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon articulated his concern over what he called the breakdown of state structures in the Middle East and the growing cancer of ISIS. General Michael Flynn, former Director of Defense Intelligence, has sharply criticized the President over his handling of ISIS, claiming he continues to ignore a dire threat to the United States. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter articulated a similar viewpoint last month, calling ISIS contained tactically but not strategically. Yet in spite of the overwhelming opinion of his advisors, President Obama remains firm in his estimate.

Regardless of what the president believes, he should explain his outlook in greater detail to the American public. From the outside, we see the dramatic rise of an extremely violent terrorist organization and extrapolate the trend line to an even more unstable and dangerous future. Indeed if ISIS were to augment territorial expansion and transnational terror attacks as we have seen over the past year, we could find ourselves facing an unprecedented enemy in the near future. Granted, some of his secrecy is politically and militarily motivated. He cannot err again by calling ISIS the “JV” team, and he cannot reveal too much military strategy because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

That said, the president could do more to articulate why he feels compelled to stay the course as the world seems to be erupting into violence. As the American people become increasingly concerned about terrorism, he should clarify exactly why he feels compelled to address other issues before ISIS. The president will remain in office for another 12 months, and he cannot revert to conducting foreign policy in secret and behind closed doors.