Commentary Magazine


ISIS and the Cost of Leading From Behind

The cost of leading from behind is going up. The release of a video showing ISIS terrorists in Libya executing Egyptian Christians was shocking and not just because of the depravity of the atrocity. The video’s production showed that the Libyan Islamists were closely coordinating with ISIS in Syria and Iraq revealing that what President Obama called a terrorist “jayvee team” was not only growing stronger but also expanding its reach around the region. In response to the murder of its citizens, the Egyptian military launched a strike at a target in Libya. Though it probably did little harm to the terrorists, it at least sent a strong message that the group could not expect to operate there with impunity. While Egypt may be signaling that it is prepared to push back against ISIS, the ability of the group to operate in Libya demonstrates the bankruptcy of America’s belated and half-hearted efforts against the group. Having originally gotten into Libya while bragging about leading from behind during the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime, the Obama administration appears determined to demonstrate just how disastrous this philosophy can be.

Administration apologists put down the recent spate of terror videos as an effort by ISIS to cover up for its weaknesses and losses with spectacular murders in order to bolster its reputation as the “strong horse” in the Middle East. There is some logic to this argument, but it is offset by the plain facts of the case. After months of a bombing campaign conducted by the United States and some of its Arab allies in Iraq and Syria, ISIS is more than holding its own. Even worse, it has formed alliances and begun to make its impact felt elsewhere. Rather than rolling back ISIS, the U.S. is barely holding it back from making more gains. Even worse, the anti-ISIS coalition has shown itself unable to prevent the group from scoring public-relations coups with snuff films that show what happens to those who are so unfortunate as to fall into their hands.

This ought to be a moment for reflection in Washington as the president and his foreign policy and defense team finally come up with a strategy that has as its aim the destruction of ISIS rather than attrition tactics that seem taken straight out of the Lyndon Johnson administration’s Vietnam War playbook, replete with body counts and overoptimistic bulletins bragging of pyrrhic victories.

But instead, all we continue to get out of the administration is an approach that seems aimed more at ensuring that the U.S. doesn’t win than anything else. The administration’s proposal for a new authorization for the use of force in the Middle East is as much about restrictions on the ability of the president to conduct a successful campaign against these barbarians than to actually “degrade” and eventually defeat ISIS.

Just as troubling is the administration’s determination to go on treating the Egyptian government led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi with disdain at a time when it has become a bulwark in the fight against ISIS and other radicals such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Instead of seeking to help the Egyptians, the U.S. is keeping its distance from Cairo, giving the lie to the president’s belief in multilateralism, a concept that only seems to apply to efforts to constrain self-defense efforts by allies rather than supporting them.

President Obama was dragged into the war against ISIS reluctantly and belatedly and that lack of interest in the fight shows in his statements and an amorphous anti-terror policy that seems aimed more at tolerating Islamists than in taking them out. Sisi is prepared to talk about the religious roots of terror. Obama isn’t. Egypt can’t destroy ISIS in Libya by itself any more than Jordan can do it in Syria and Iraq. American allies look to Washington for commitment and strength and instead they get statements about moral equivalence designed more to allow the president to shirk the responsibility to lead.

Expressions of shock about the mass beheadings of Christians are of no use. Mere statements of condemnation are not a substitute for a war-winning strategy or a willingness to stand by our allies. Far from mere propaganda, ISIS’s murder videos have shown the region that the U.S. can be defied with impunity. If the U.S. is serious about fighting ISIS, that is not an impression that it can allow to persist. Or at least it can’t if we really intended to defeat ISIS. Obama must lead or at least get out of the way.

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

4 Responses to “ISIS and the Cost of Leading From Behind”


    I do not see how the performance of the Obama administration can be measured by progress against ISIS. The campaign against global warming, in Obama’s own words, is far more important and urgent. Let him continue his crusade to stop the oceans from rising until he succeeds. With that victory first, he’ll be in a far better position to defeat ISIS.

  2. KENT LYON says:

    It should be clear to Mr. Tobin, and everyone else, that Obama has no intention of defeating ISIS. To the contrary, he will continue to do his best to pretend that ISIS is not a threat and does not need to be taken seriously. That attitude will enhance the growth and spread of ISIS. It appears that be ignoring the threat, downplaying it, and avoiding any serious action against it, Obama is aiding ISIS by faint response. Any serious observer without bias would conclude that Obama is doing his utmost, given his position, to aid ISIS. Making a slight show against iSIS is the best thing that Obama can do to assist ISIS. All of the hand-wringing about Obama’s approach assumes that Obama is interested in the security of the US and our allies. His actions tell an entirely different story. When is the conservative media going to wake up and realize that Obama is not on our side. At a minimum he is neutral, but in his position as American commander-in-chief, he is restraining American military might to the advantage of radical Islamist terrorists, while supporting the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is doing the opposite of anything in the interest of American security or that of our allies. And whatever happened to his “duty to protect” that he invoked as the reason for going into Libya? No one hears anything about that any more, and slaughter of thousands is the order of the day by the JV team. If that is a JV team, it should be easy for Obama to take out. If so, why hasn’t he done it? He doesn’t want to. He favors the expansion of ISIS. His actions confirm it. By their fruits you shall know them.


    Someone is more interested in promoting/protecting Islam/ism than fighting Shia and Sunnis Jihadism.

  4. K T NOELL says:

    Kent Lyon (below) says it very well.
    We need to get it through our thick skulls that Baraq al-Hawaii means the West great harm, much of which he has already accomplished, but he is nothing if not ambitious. We must simply accept the copious evidence of his malfeasance as evidence, and deal with it.

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.