Does Obama Have the Right Approach to Combating Terrorism?

Sunday will mark the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Since that time, the U.S. has fought protracted wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq and dealt with the rise of the Islamic State group, a terrorist organization that claims to be creating a new caliphate in the Middle East. The U.S. has also endured terrorist attacks on its own soil, such as those in Orlando and San Bernadino, while abroad, the Islamic State group has struck in Brussels, Belgium; Nice, France; and Istanbul, Turkey, among many other places. Accordingly, both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama committed significant time during their respective administrations to the question of how and where to combat terrorism.

Currently, American concerns about terrorism are at some of the highest levels since 2001. (Though there are large partisan gaps in attitudes about the extent of the danger and who is to blame for it.) Following the June shooting in an Orlando nightclub during which 49 people were killed – making it the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11 – one in four Americans named terrorism as their top concern.

[SEE: More coverage of the 9/11 anniversary.]

Obama's approach to the issue has been to wind down the two wars begun by his predecessor, while increasing the use of drone strikes against terrorist leadership; he's also employed extensive air strikes against the Islamic State group in Syria. "Even as we continue to destroy ISIL militarily, we're addressing larger forces that have allowed these terrorists to gain traction in parts of the world. With regard to Iraq, this means helping Iraqis stabilize liberated communities and promote inclusive governance so ISIL cannot return. With regard to Syria, it means our continued support for the fragile cessation of hostilities there," Obama said in a June speech on terrorism, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group.

Critics contend, though, as they have since Obama came into office, that his approach to preventing terrorism is too passive. “Unfortunately, the White House still doesn’t have a plan to get the job done,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., after the terrorist attacks in Brussels in March.

So does Obama have the right approach to combating terrorism? Here is the Debate Club's take: