Podcast Summary: The Political Scene (The New Yorker)

Episode: Steve Coll and Ryan Lizza Discuss ISIS and Obama’s Foreign-Policy Crisis

Date: September 6, 2014
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guests: Steve Coll (Staff Writer, Dean of Columbia Journalism School), Ryan Lizza (Washington Correspondent)

Overview

This episode delves into President Obama’s response to the simultaneous crises of ISIS’s rise in Iraq and Syria and the Russian incursion into Ukraine. The conversation examines the internal and external dynamics shaping U.S. foreign policy, the limits of American and allied intervention, the complexities of coalition-building, and the consequential debates within the Democratic Party—particularly between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton—about America’s role in the world.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Obama’s Approach to ISIS and The “No Strategy Yet” Gaffe

• Obama’s evolving stance: The President’s admission of lacking a clear strategy against ISIS leads to examination of the challenges facing U.S. and coalition responses in Iraq and Syria.
• Coalition dynamics: Allies (notably Britain, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and the UAE) are on board with degrading and destroying ISIS but not all details or responsibilities are worked out, especially regarding action in Syria.
  • Steve Coll (02:51):
    “Some nations have decided…to support the initial Obama defense of the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq and the use of airstrikes to protect vulnerable religious minority populations in Iraq. Now there’s a discussion about…a policy that would also reach and undermine ISIS inside Syria.”
• Strategic deadlock: The president’s hesitancy partly reflects concerns about getting ahead of allies and the Pentagon, and uncertainty about possible intervention methods in Syria.

2. The Limits of U.S. Power in Sectarian Conflicts

• Constraints without full intervention: American influence is sharply constrained absent the use of ground troops; the underlying cross-border Sunni-Shiite conflict complicates external solutions.
  • Steve Coll (04:29):
    “What is American power without military intervention? Well, we’ve seen not much. We can support refugees, selectively support the Kurds…[but] we can’t change the balance of these two civil wars.”
• Long-term strategy: To defeat ISIS, coalition partners must address not just military threats, but the political alienation of Sunni populations in both Iraq and Syria.
  • Steve Coll (05:02):
    “The strategy has to be to not only address ISIS control and degrade it…but also to come up with a long term solution for Sunni self governance and stability.”

3. The Democratic Policy Debate: Obama vs. Clinton

• Hillary Clinton’s criticism: Clinton’s belief in building coalitions and earlier support for arming Syrian rebels is contrasted against Obama’s caution and skepticism about successful intervention.
  • Ryan Lizza (08:14):
    “Hillary has wanted it to be known that she was an early advocate for aiding the anti-Assad rebels...that if the United States had aided the rebels earlier on, we wouldn’t have had that vacuum that ISIS was able to create.”
  • Obama’s rebuttal: He views this as “revisionist history,” doubting moderate rebels could have succeeded (08:14).
• Public Opinion: U.S. voters are skeptical of deeper involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts, leading politicians—from Obama to Republicans like Rand Paul—into difficult recalibrations.
  • Ryan Lizza (10:30):
    “There’s no doubt that public opinion polls…do not support the U.S. dropping bombs all over the Middle East.”
• Role reversals: Noted inversion of party reputations, with Clinton cast as hawkish and some Republicans, like Rand Paul, seeking a less interventionist path—until pressures force their positions to shift (11:05).

4. The Syrian War and Roots of ISIS

• Civil war as catalyst: The panel underscores that Syrian instability, more than U.S. decisions, created the conditions for ISIS’s rise.
  • Steve Coll (11:59):
    “The mess that has arisen in Iraq and Syria is not a result of American policy as much as a result of the Syrian war… That’s what ISIS feasts on.”
• Counterfactuals and internecine Democratic debate: The “what if” debate over arming the rebels is ongoing, but ultimately unresolvable—underscoring the intractability of the underlying conflicts.

5. ISIS’s Media Strategy and Goals

• Terror as spectacle: ISIS’s gruesome killings grab global attention, but also provoke inevitable U.S. military responses—possibly exactly as ISIS intends.
  • Steve Coll (14:56):
    “They want to establish…a new caliphate…They want a state of conflict that heightens their own legitimacy and that recruits volunteers to fight on their behalf, and that brings money to their cause.”
• Danger in U.S. response: The challenge for the U.S. is to counter ISIS as a real threat without overinflating their stature or falling into the trap of endless confrontation.

6. Saudi Arabia’s Double Role in Extremism

• Tough diplomacy: The U.S. is caught between reliance on Saudi support and frank recognition that Saudi-funded networks still promote extremism.
  • Steve Coll (17:29):
    “The situation that shocked us on 9/11…really hasn’t changed very much, except that the Saudis no longer are interested so much in following our lead…But there is, in fact, a coalescence of interest. Everybody has an interest in stopping ISIS from fulfilling its ambitions.”

7. NATO’s New/Old Role Amid Russian Aggression

• Renewed relevance, limited power: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gives NATO a renewed sense of purpose but also exposes the alliance’s limitations, especially outside its core Article 5 responsibilities.
  • Steve Coll (21:35):
    “I think [the Ukraine ceasefire is] very fragile. I’m not even sure it’s real. And NATO has virtually no power to enforce it… NATO’s new role is its old role.”
• Potential existential crisis: There is fear that Russia might test NATO’s resolve by stirring trouble inside a member state, thus triggering the collective defense clause—a prospect far more serious than Ukraine, which is outside NATO.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Obama (on ISIS, 01:57):
  “Their horrific acts only unite us as a country and stiffen our resolve to take the fight against these terrorists. And those who make the mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget and that our reach is long and that justice will be served.”

• Steve Coll (on the difficulty of building Sunni autonomy, 05:02):
  “Now what then? Putting all these people around a table and saying this is the problem, what’s the solution? What do you do? I think there are probably very different approaches in Iraq and Syria.”

• Ryan Lizza (on party politics, 10:30):
  “You have Republicans like Rand Paul…describing Hillary as a war hawk…inverting the traditional distinction between Democrats and Republicans.”

• Steve Coll (on the nature of ISIS, 14:56):
  “Their idea, which was Al Qaeda’s idea, is if you go to war with the biggest military power in the world, then you must be important.”

• Steve Coll (on NATO’s constraints, 21:35):
  “NATO’s role. NATO’s new role is its old role…If Russia did in Estonia… what it’s doing now in Ukraine…you’d have to go to combat.”

Key Timestamps

• 01:57: (Obama’s declaration on ISIS)
• 02:51: (Steve Coll explains coalition agreement and NATO role)
• 04:29; 05:02: (Limits of U.S. power, and Sunni grievances)
• 08:14: (Clinton vs. Obama on intervention)
• 10:30-11:12: (Public opinion and shifting party positions)
• 11:59: (Origins of the current chaos—Syrian civil war)
• 14:56: (ISIS’s goals and use of media terror)
• 17:29: (Saudi Arabia’s role in extremism and U.S.-Saudi tensions)
• 21:35: (NATO’s limitations in Ukraine and collective defense dilemma)

Conclusion

This episode offers a nuanced, in-depth look at why President Obama’s foreign policy—especially as it pertains to ISIS and Russia—has struggled to find a successful formula. Through debate and historical context, Coll and Lizza illuminate the intractable complexities on the ground, the challenges of coalition leadership, partisan debates about intervention, and the enduring impact of legacy wars and destabilized states on U.S. power and policy in the world.