President Obama has made some good moves in confronting ISIS. He deserves credit for that.
For starters, we’ve learned the president secretly sent special-ops forces into Syria in a risky mission to rescue US journalist James Foley and other ISIS hostages.
It’s horrible those hostages weren’t found and Foley was beheaded. But that takes nothing away from Obama’s wisdom and courage in OK’ing the mission (or, for that matter, the bravery of the special-ops forces).
So, too, does the president earn kudos for nixing ISIS’ demands for ransom in exchange for Foley’s release. That must have been a heart-wrenching decision. Americans are usually willing to shell out money to save lives — say, by funding rescue missions.
But paying blood money only encourages more hostage-taking.
Obama also ramped up airstrikes against ISIS and is considering sending more troops back to Iraq. Those are good signs.
Next would be a tough, coherent plan to, as he put it, “extract this cancer” — with America leading the way. Yet the Justice Department has now begun a criminal probe into Foley’s beheading.
When we wondered Thursday if Obama would treat ISIS members like criminals to be read Miranda rights, we were mostly joking. This is a war; not a Mideast crime spike.
Also of concern is Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s statement Thursday suggesting America’s military role would be narrowly focused and aid to Iraq in fighting ISIS would depend on “political reform” there.
Yet, if there’s little reform, would Obama allow ISIS to go unchallenged?
Hagel, notably, deemed ISIS a terrorist group beyond anything we’ve seen before. The response should meet the challenge.