I continue to be asked about the wisdom of Obama’s communication approach. Last week I offered much of my thinking about leadership communication in general, both in “normal” and crisis times. But a question came up this week about the president’s reaffirming over and over that there will never be American “boots on the ground” in Iraq.
My experience suggests that at times of crisis it is rarely helpful to announce what you are not going to do. This limits future options, introduces a negative tone, invites your critics to respond with all kinds of opinions, and gives adversaries valuable information for their tactical planning.
It usually is best to simply say, “Here are my objectives, and this is what we intend to do.” When questioned about more details, it also usually works just fine to repeat your objectives and add that you are fully prepared with action options when the situation calls for them. But it is premature to talk about alternatives now, and you will not do so.
It’s also fine, and sometimes essential, to explain why this approach is necessary in this situation. Explanation of “why” is often pecisely what’s missing. And when issues of legislative participation are involved, it’s helpful to add that those “needing to know” have, and will continue to be briefed in a classified and confidential manner. And here again, an explanation of “why” is often missing. The media already knows why, to be sure, But they won’t report it unless the wording is in a newsmaker’s statement.
With respect to Obama, the phrase “boots on the ground” is another one that has different meanings for different people. Special forces, advisors, trainers, etc. are already on the ground, and they could get drawn into actual fighting at any moment. Military advisors get nervous about their credibility in situations like this. Disagreements surface, and the administration publicly appears in turmoil. This should never happen.
It seems that Obama may be trying to rationalize his current actions in light of his campaign promises. But in a crisis situation, all bets are off. The need to act decisively trumps the need to justify past statements. That was then, this is now. Once again, explaining this is important. Most people will understand.
He may also be thinking that if he lets countries with reasons to have boots on the ground believe that he is actually willing do it, they will just wait for him to act. But the US deals with those counties privately, and so White House public statements could be a bit more ambiguous.
No doubt, managing all this every day is extremely difficult in a 24/7 news environment. But telling an enemy specifically what he is not going to do, and giving critics at home daily opportunities to generate obstructive noise, is something Obama and his staff should be working harder to avoid.
Larry D. Lauer 
It’s not the enemy he is worried about; it is his schizoid Congress and a very wary public. This country is war weary and sick of the Middle East, which is like a tar baby. He would say most anything to get the Congressional approval behind any action contemplated. He has that, and now he can do most anything. The thing I find fallacious is how are you going to train and equip a ragtag group of militias when we spent years supposedly training the Iraqi Army which collapsed at their first encounter with ISIS, and not only ran but left all their weapons on the field so ISIS is fighting with our weapons.