Obama’s airstrike plan met with support and skepticism from the Hill

In a prime-time address Wednesday night, President Barack Obama laid out a four-point plan to fight the Islamic State militant group operating out of Iraq and Syria.

In a prime-time address Wednesday night, President Barack Obama rallied Americans to support the fight against the Islamic State militant group operating out of Iraq and Syria.

The president warned of a long-term effort in both countries or “wherever they exist,” but committed to no American “combat troops” on the ground. Instead, he said there would be continued airstrikes and American military “advisers” who would train more moderate rebels in Syria and work with the Iraqi military. To “train and equip” those fighters, he urged Congress to approve more funding for that effort.

Reaction to the president’s speech and policy ranged from support to skepticism to questions of a lack of specifics.

“What happens if airstrikes can’t do it?” New York Times columnist David Brooks asked on a NewsHour Special Report following the president’s speech. He added that it was a “clear, straightforward” speech, but asked, “What’s the next step?”

Syndicated columnist Mark Shields noted that the president laid out a “big set of promises,” but “made the case against [the Islamic State group] better than he made the case for his own action.” He said the president “glossed over” Congress’ role and urged that “it’s very important to have a debate,” especially because “the president is making a case for war here.”

Responses from the Hill ranged from relief…

“I commend the President for his persistent, strong leadership in establishing a government of reconciliation in Iraq, and in his diplomatic efforts to have coordination among of our NATO allies and regional powers,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, in an official statement.

Glad we have a President who thinks and aims before he shoots. Otherwise we get more Iraq Wars – which created ISIS in the first place.

— Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) September 11, 2014

Tomorrow’s remembrance of 9/11 should serve as a reminder the United States must lead w/ steel & resolve to fight radical terrorists.

— Lee Terry (@LEETERRYNE) September 11, 2014

…to doubt.

“A speech is not the same thing as a strategy…” said Rep. John Boehner, House Speaker in his official response. “While the president presented a compelling case for action, many questions remain about the way in which the president intends to act.  For example, I support the president’s plan to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces and Syrian opposition, but I remain concerned that those measures could take years to fully implement at a time when ISIL’s momentum and territorial gains need to be immediately halted and reversed.”

Arab allies? Egypt needs ISIS to bolster its argument that Sissi is better than Islamists. And Iraq is not going to help arm a Sunni Army.

— Nancy Youssef, نانسى (@nancyayoussef) September 11, 2014

“It is right to target ISIS from the air, while local Arab and Kurdish forces are trained and armed to battle on the ground, but Syria can’t be a sanctuary from U.S. and allied air strikes,” Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in his official comments. “…Tonight was a start, but it remains to be seen whether the Administration, after much delay and denial, develops and executes the sustained commitment needed to destroy ISIS by building a powerful coalition against these brutal jihadists.”

Obama says he will expand the fight against ISIL into Syria. If US gives weapons to rebels, how will it keep ISIL from capturing them?

— Jonathan Alter (@jonathanalter) September 11, 2014

“…the President’s plan will likely be insufficient to destroy ISIS, which is the world’s largest, richest terrorist army,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a joint statement.

The biggest hole in the president's logic: You can't say you are committed to destroying IS and in the same breath rule out ground troops.

— Charles M. Sennott (@CMSennott) September 11, 2014

“Tonight, the President finally recognized the grave and serious threat posed by ISIS. The President laid out his plan to address this threat; however, President Obama’s strategy remains much too vague and leans far too heavily on foreign partners,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) in a Facebook post.

What’s most troubling is that President Obama didn’t define what victory over ISIL will look like.

— Rep. Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) September 11, 2014

Targeted airstrikes against #ISIL in #Syria alone will not solve the problem. What about al-Nusra + other terrorist organizations???

— Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (@RosLehtinen) September 11, 2014

Academics observing thought the president’s remarks lacked specifics.

Surprised by #POTUS speech: No explanation of how #ISIL presents grave threat to US. No presentation of legal justification of Syria strikes

— Shibley Telhami (@ShibleyTelhami) September 11, 2014

Interesting that he did not list all the allies by name

— Henri Barkey (@hbarkey) September 11, 2014

In a rare moment of agreement, the President’s plan seemed to align with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assessment of the threat. At an event earlier in the day Cheney said “ISIS does not recognize a border between Syria and Iraq, so neither should we. We should immediately hit them in their sanctuaries, staging areas, command centers, and lines of communication wherever we find them.”

Meanwhile, a new Pew Research Center survey served as a backdrop for the remarks and its subsequent reactions. According to the report, 67 percent of 2,002 responders identified the Islamic State group as a “major threat” to the U.S. and 42 percent said the government is doing “not too well” or “not at all well” in reducing the terror threat. Overall, the number of people “very concerned” about the rise of Islamic extremism has also rocketed to 62 percent from 37 percent in the past two years.