War on Isis: Barack Obama’s pep talk fails to inspire America in its fight against terrorism

However resolute its language and measured its tone, President Barack Obama’s national address on terrorism from the Oval Office was basically an admission of failure: his failure to get his message across that Americans are being kept safe, and that he has an adequate strategy to defeat Isis.

These problems have been thrown into brutal relief by the San Bernardino massacre and by the supercharged rhetoric of the 2016 election campaign, which only makes it harder for Mr Obama to achieve his proclaimed goal of uniting the country behind its commander-in-chief against the terrorist menace.

But they have been compounded by his own suggestions on occasion that the threat of terrorism was receding, and that militant Isis was less of a danger than it was cracked up to be. On Sunday evening, he again insisted that a policy of patience would see the US and its allies prevail – even as Isis appears to be holding fast on its home turf and to be ever more capable of carrying well-planned and murderous attacks abroad, as in Paris last month.

Judging by the speech, that policy remains unchanged. The address, only the third from the Oval Office in his near seven years in the White House, contained virtually nothing new. Once again the president who made it his mission to end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rejected demands for a major US-led ground operation to destroy Isis. Instead, he held out the prospect of more of the same: more drone and special force operations, coupled with a beefed-up FBI action to counter the Isis menace on home soil, and root out followers such as the married couple that carried out the San Bernardino attack. This would be a long haul, Mr Obama made clear, even if there was no doubt the US would ultimately prevail.

But Americans were left unimpressed. For the first time, according to a new CNN poll, a narrow majority – 53 per cent – favours sending US ground forces to Iraq and Syria. Even a majority of Democrats believe the administration’s response to Isis has not been tough enough.

As for Republicans, especially their presidential candidates, the reaction was predictably withering: “Is that all there is? We need a new President – FAST!” front runner Donald Trump tweeted, while former Florida governor Jeb Bush demanded that Mr Obama “remove the self-imposed constraints” he has placed on the US intelligence community and military.

Marco Rubio, another contender, took issue with Mr Obama’s argument that overly fearful Americans should not play into Isis’ hands by ostracising Muslims. “Where is evidence that we have a problem with discrimination against Muslims?” asked the Florida Senator. “I think not only did the president not make things better tonight, I fear he may have made things worse.”

Up to a point, none of this greatly matters. The President is not seeking re-election and so, for him, the verdict will be delivered not by voters but by history. Nonetheless, the trademark coolness and unflappability of the man once dubbed “No Drama Obama” no long impresses as it once did. For many voters (and not exclusively Republican voters) the phrase has become a synonym for apathy and disengagement. And he may be doing his own party no favours as it seeks to hold on to the White House in 2016, and regain control of the Senate. Increasingly, this is shaping up as an election about national security, an issue which usually favours the Republicans.