The policy responses you describe, Bob, are largely correct.
As George C. Marshall said, "If you get the objectives right, a second lieutenant can write the strategy." Defining the objectives at the national security strategy level is ultimately, up to the president to do. When he doesn't (or uses nebulous "fudge" words), then everything else below his level gets immeasurably more difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.
This is the president weak suit, if you ask me.
First, this is probably too little, too late. This problem has been festering for too long, and the situation is much worse now than it was a year and a half ago.
The second point is related to the first. The president no doubt has asked the members of the coalition to support. When no (or little) material support or action materializes, it seems this president feels his job is done: "Well, I asked. Nobody did anything." The president just seems too passive. He seems extremely reluctant to lead. Leadership is getting people to do things they otherwise would not do. You cajole, persuade, bribe, and sometimes pressure others to do their bit. The United States is not just any country. When the US throws its weight around in support of good, good things happen. When the US throws its weight around in support of something bad, bad things happen. When the US does nothing in the face of abject evil or votes "present," evil notices. The president seems to prefer a very collegial style in which Luxembourg and Vanuatu count as much as the US. The idea of "leadership" seems distasteful to him.
