Tonight the president will tell Congress and the American people:
In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.
Well, I guess that depends on the meaning of the word “is”:
Image via the Daily Mail and Coalition for a Democratic Syria. The situation in Iraq is more mixed but by no means has the Islamic State been stopped there, either. Where the group has been stopped, it was mostly because there were Kurds in the way — backed up by the most belated American leadership.
At least he didn’t highlight the similarities to the “Yemen model” this time.
UPDATE: Zach Beauchamp of Vox says the above map is “wrong” and offers a variety of other graphics that make the Islamic State’s gains over the past few months look a good deal less dramatic. It’s worth checking out his post to see more details about what the group does and doesn’t control, but detailed maps don’t show trends very well. And yes, eastern Syria is mostly desert, but controlling rural areas is no joke — optics matter. The useful evidence Beauchamp marshals doesn’t dispel the fact that the Islamic State seems to be advancing in more places than it’s being rolled back.
The president’s treatment of the matter, even people like Andrea Mitchell agreed, was too rosy a depiction of the situation — that’s the point the above map, a blunt instrument just like the president’s words, encapsulates. If you want more details of what’s going on, do see Beauchamp’s post.
I wouldn’t, however, put too much credence in his comments on the legitimacy of the above map on the grounds it’s from a Syrian opposition group that supports more intervention. Beauchamp cites the quality work of the Institute for the Study of War — see what they want done about the Islamic State.