The Wall street Journal
President Barack Obama is under scrutiny lately not so much for what he’s doing, but for what he’s not doing – and not saying.
Mr. Obama has drawn criticism for his use of the presidential bully pulpit to make a point by omission, by not using the phrase “Islamic” extremism. He’s also come under fire for his strategies on Syria and the fight against Islamic State, which have become increasingly interwoven.
While one critique is aimed at calculated presidential rhetoric and the other targets substantive U.S. policy, both have dovetailed in the 2016 presidential debate as two points about a broader failure of American leadership. And neither will change until after there’s a new president.
Mr. Obama has drawn tight limits on what military action he’s willing to authorize in Iraq and Syria to combat the Islamic State. He’s taken off the table military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, any large-scale U.S. invasion to defeat Islamic State, and other steps such as a no-fly zone.
The president’s argument is that any of those options would draw the U.S. into another protracted military engagement in the Middle East that is not in America’s interest. Instead, he’s pursued a strategy of limited U.S. military engagement of airstrikes and assisting local forces, along with diplomatic talks aimed at a political transition in Syria.
The White House has made clear he doesn’t intend to shift course, despite criticism not just on the campaign trail but now from dozens of State Department officials. Any significant policy shift, absent a foundation-shaking event, will only happen after Mr. Obama has left the White House in six months.
Mr. Obama did so after he was sworn in to succeed President George W. Bush. In February 2009, he announced a new strategy for the war in Iraq, which followed a monthlong review of the policy that began his first full day in office. A separate, three-month review of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan resulted in Mr. Obama signing off on a new war plan, including a surge in U.S. troops, before the end of the year.
Both presumptive presidential nominees – Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump – have expressed support for a different approach to Syria and Islamic State. Their proposed approaches are dramatically different, to be sure, with Mrs. Clinton far more aligned with Mr. Obama–although she does differ with him on a no-fly zone in Syria. But either candidate would have the opportunity to reset the U.S. strategy without the constraints Mr. Obama has imposed on his policy.
Similarly, the next president will have the opportunity to set a different rhetorical tone in U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Obama has made careful calculations about his public rhetoric since his early days in office, such as referring to Iran as “the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
His use of rhetoric has long come with criticism, but lately the firestorm is over his refusal to say “Islamic” extremism. For Republicans, including Mr. Trump, it’s another example of Mr. Obama’s failure to be muscular enough against terrorism.
Mr. Obama has sharply pushed back against the criticism, saying last week that it risks painting an entire religion with a broad brush and has no relation to how strong he’s been against terrorism. He also argues the potential costs of using “Islamic” extremism don’t outweigh any potential benefits.
Mrs. Clinton has said she’s “happy” to use the phrase “Islamic extremism” even though she believes it matters more what you do than what you say.
Making a point from the presidential podium by not saying something is an atypical use of the country’s loudest bully pulpit. But it’s one that Mr. Obama has long taken pride in adopting.
“Language is very important to him,” said Martha Kumar, a longtime expert on presidential transitions. “He doesn’t want to buy into someone else’s meaning. He wants to establish his own meaning.”