President Obama has received quite a bit of criticism recently over his handling of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the terrorist group that has taken over broad swathes of Syria and Iraq since the middle of last year. Most recently, he has seemingly compared the actions of ISIS to the Crusades. Further, a former national security official has declared that the President lacks a clear strategy for dealing with ISIS, though the administration earlier this month released its 2015 National Security Strategy.

Despite their frequency and volume, these criticisms are largely baseless. Though the Obama administration was slow in taking up the fight against ISIS, it has since correctly determined that that battle is a vital one for the future of a strategically important region. Moreover, the administration’s decision to make broad attempts at cautiously building a coalition is wise.

In particular, the administration has consistently pursued a strategy of lending air power and logistical aid in support of regional partners ranging from the Iraqi government and Kurdish forces to states like Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. As some analysts have pointed out, ensuring that local partners take the lead is the only way of winning a sustainable victory against ISIS and countering extremism in the region more generally. Only regional governments can forge the political solutions that will prevent the emergence of groups like ISIS in the future.

While the strategy of supporting regional partners has already seen success, it is not without flaws. One concern has been the reliance of the Iraqi government on Shiite militias—the same kind of sectarian favoritism that produced ISIS. Former CIA Director and commander of U.S. forces in Iraq David Petraeus has warned against “the United States being the air force for Shia militias.”

Another strategic issue is that of Syria. The United States has largely given up on trying to oust the regime of Bashar al-Assad, but needs to pursue a clearer strategy geared towards ending the humanitarian disaster of that country’s civil war. Moreover, the U.S. must have a clear idea of its preferred endgame regarding the presence of ISIS in Syria.

In short, though the Obama administration’s efforts to build coalitions are worthwhile, it cannot rely solely on vague goals. All these areas of murkiness mean that the U.S. must develop a more comprehensive strategic framework, one which clearly communicates its expectations to its allies and which backs up those expectations with tangible actions.

Beyond developing a coherent plan in Syria, the administration must not allow the Iraqi government to see U.S. support as endless and must incentivize Baghdad towards reigning in Shiite militias and continuing to build a stronger relationship with the Kurds.

The Obama administration is moving in the right direction in some of these areas. Perhaps most significantly, the President’s recent request for a three-year Congressional authorization for the campaign against ISIS could signal to American allies its unwillingness to provide endless military support in that region. On all fronts, however, the administration must take clearer stances and more decisive action. Anything less would risk further confusion in a region that has long needed less of it.