( CNN ) -- When President Obama spoke to the nation about military action in Iraq , it was hard to directly catch his eye . He moved side to side , reading the prompter , as he often does , but hardly ever facing the camera directly . It was a `` My Fellow Americans '' moment , only he did n't really look us in the eye . Maybe it 's because he was saying something he really never wanted to say : that he had ordered airstrikes in Iraq . No one should argue with the decision . Part of it was to protect American personnel . It was to prevent genocide on a faraway mountaintop and drop food and water to the thousands stranded and cornered . It was to tell the world clearly that this wo n't be tolerated by the United States . And for that , the President should be applauded . But it was obvious , as the President 's head weaved side-to-side , that there was much more baggage weighing on this decision . Eight paragraphs into the speech , the President felt the need to explain to the public that this is n't a slippery slope to another lengthy involvement . `` I ran for office in part to end our war in Iraq , '' he said . `` As commander in chief , I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq . '' It was as if he was reassuring himself as much as the American public . Time and time again , this President has been drawn into decisions that threaten to undermine his chief foreign policy narrative : killing Osama Bin Laden , ending two unpopular wars . When the Islamic radicals were gaining strength in early summer , GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham described the President as `` stubborn-headed , delusional , detached . '' He argued at that time that the President should `` put air power into the game . '' He went to the White House and told the President as much . But the President waited . The U.S. wanted a new Iraqi government in place -- and hopefully Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki gone -- before moving on ISIS . So he sent some noncombat special forces troops to get some eyes on the situation on the ground , but declined to use American air power at that time . But now he 's up against the wall , and he 's acting , which is the right thing to do . Still , no matter how limited -- and no matter how commendable -- this decision , the obvious questions now arise : Even though this mission is carefully , and narrowly , defined , what happens if the unexpected happens and the mission escalates ? Would the U.S. turn away ? Would we arm moderates , as we have refused to do elsewhere ? And speaking of Syria , how does this decision apply there -- if at all ? Some argue that the problem in Syria has gotten so far past the point where a carefully targeted use of air power would have any impact . Then the question becomes : How does the United States make its humanitarian and moral decisions ? In a larger sense , what are the guidelines that govern these difficult foreign policy decisions ? The President ought to talk some more to the American people about that part of his thinking . We already know his obvious rules of the game that now govern military involvement : no boots on the ground , no long-term commitments , just humanitarian efforts . The pillar for his foreign policy seems to be : Stay out of trouble . But the natural question to then ask is whether this credo does n't just generate more trouble over time . At this point , it 's hard to know . We all agree that not many of us want to be `` dragged , '' as the President put it , into fighting another war in Iraq . We all understand the President 's sense about the limits of American involvement in military conflict . So we are all clear on what he wo n't do . We 're still not sure about what he will do -- and maybe neither is he .
Gloria Brown : President Obama never wanted to order more action in Washington . She says the president seemed to focus most on what he did n't want to do . Does a policy of avoiding trouble only cause more trouble ? Brown : Obama made the right call but needs to explain more of his thinking .