The Obama Administration has an amazing, almost uncanny ability to stub its toe on the most ludicrous things imaginable. The latest weird distraction involves whether our campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is a “war.”
Secretary of State John Kerry took pains, in two separate interviews, to say that “war is not the right terminology” to describe the U.S. actions against ISIS, which instead will be a “major counterterrorism operation.” National Security Advisor Susan Rice similarly resisted describing the operation as a “war.” The next day, however, a Pentagon spokesman and the White House Press Secretary both described the ISIS campaign as a “war.”
I’m guessing that what happened is this: some political operative issued “talking points” that strongly discouraged using the word “war” because they don’t want Americans to think they’re going to see a repeat of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. But if you say you are going to destroy an an armed opponent, as President Obama said of ISIS in his speech this week, what you are talking about obviously is a war. Quibbling about words makes the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor look like political flacks rather than the thoughtful, above-the-fray stewards of American foreign policy.
This is another instance, too, where the words can have real-world consequences. America is trying to build a coalition of countries to fight ISIS. If you are the leader of one of those countries that is considering joining the coalition, and you are trying to decide whether you can trust the United States, what message about long-term American commitment do you draw from the silly wrangling about whether the U.S. actions are a “war” or a “major counterterrorism operation”? If you’re trying to decide whether to deploy your scarce military and economic resources, and potentially make your country a target of a brutal group of Islamic terrorists, do you want to rely on an ally that is inexplicably pussyfooting around about whether it is fighting a “war”?