|
 No one doubts this dramatic escalation presages a long conflict
that could spill into neighboring states and that U.S. air power
alone cannot win.
Analysts who have watched Islamic State take parts of Syria and
seize territory in Iraq believe it may be possible to contain the
group but it will hard to dislodge it.
Washington is clearly bracing for the long haul. The sudden blitz on
Tuesday was only the start of a “campaign to degrade and ultimately
destroy” Islamic State, said General William Mayville, the Pentagon
operations director.
“America can no longer step back from the Syrian conflict”, which
Obama had avoided even after President Bashar al-Assad last year
crossed the president's “red line” by using nerve gas against the
rebels, said Fawaz Gerges, Middle East expert at the London School
of Economics.
“America’s deepening involvement will be with us for the next few
years, even after the departure of Barack Obama from the White
House," he said.
What America is joining in Syria is a war that has already cost
190,000 lives and forced 10 million from their homes.
Shi'ite Iran and Gulf Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia are backing
their sectarian proxies and Syria is a magnet for foreign jihadi
fighters, who overwhelmed mainstream Sunni rebels last year and
declared an Islamic "caliphate" in June.
BUILDING LOCAL FORCES
Islamic State's ruthless methods - mass executions, massacring
civilians and beheading captives - have caused alarm across the
world and led to the U.S. military action.
A senior U.S. official said degrading Islamic State "is a necessary
condition to getting to the political solution everybody wants to
see in Syria".
As long as Islamic State is allowed to control "what is effectively
a quasi-state the size of Jordan ... then the chances of political
outcomes and de-escalating conflicts are increasingly minimal," the
U.S. official said.
He and other allied officials say parallel to the military campaign,
the plan is to train and moderate rebel forces to fight Islamic
State and deploy in territory that would be vacated by the
militants.
While the Obama administration has secured congressional funding for
training in Saudi Arabia – around 5,000 more fighters for the Free
Syrian Army - diplomats said it would take time for the moderate
rebels now fighting both the Assad government and the Islamic State
to fill in the vacuum.
Obama delayed moving into Syria against Islamic State, ultra-violent
Sunni jihadis spawned by al Qaeda who have hijacked revolts by
Syria's Sunni majority against the minority Alawite Assad family
rule and by the Sunni minority in Iraq.
Obama waited for Iraqi politicians and their sponsors in Iran to
ditch Nuri al-Maliki, the Shi’ite prime minister whose sectarian
policies alienated the Sunnis as well as self-governing Kurds in
northern Iraq, and replace him with a more inclusive government
under Haidar al-Abadi.
Then he assembled a coalition of Sunni Arab partners, including
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
US DILEMMA
Now that air strikes against Islamic State have begun, the focus is
shifting to what will unfold on the ground, where Obama, mindful of
America's experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, has pledged not to
deploy troops.
Even with a force of 160,000 at the peak of the occupation of Iraq,
the United States could not stabilize the country because there was
no Iraqi consensus on sharing power and ending sectarian divisions.
In Afghanistan, which US-led NATO forces are due to leave at the end
of the year, there is debate about whether air and drone strikes
that often caused civilian casualties contained or boosted the
Taliban.
Islamic State is clearly savoring the dilemma of its opponents. Its
spokesman, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, taunted America: “If you fight it
(Islamic State), it becomes stronger and tougher. If you leave it
alone, it grows and expands."
[to top of second column]
|
On the ground, Islamic State fighters are embedding themselves in
towns they control in Iraq and Syria, such as Mosul and Raqqa,
readying for a guerrilla war that will include forays into
neighboring states.
“They would restructure their forces in small groups, and they
control major cities ... they have eight million Syrians and Iraqis
(as) hostages”, Gerges said. The group’s attitude is: “You want to
come after me, you’re going to have to kill a lot of civilians”, he
said. With limited capacity to mount spectacular, al Qaeda-style
attacks abroad, experts believe Islamic State will attack the soft
underbelly of the west and allies in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and the
Gulf, including their nationals and diplomats.
"All the five countries that attacked (Islamic State), Bahrain,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE, are targets”, said Jamal
Khashoggi, a leading Saudi commentator and Editor-in-Chief of Al
Arab News Channel.
The backlash has already started. Algerian militants have beheaded a
French hostage to punish Paris for joining air strikes against
Islamic State.
'THEY DON'T WANT ANOTHER IRAQ'
U.S. strategy, analysts and officials say, is to encourage Sunni
forces to turn on Islamic State, by offering a share in national
power as well as local control over their own affairs – a strategy
that looks clearer in Iraq than it does in Syria.
In Iraq, the aim is to re-enlist the Sunni tribes that ousted al
Qaeda in the Sunni Awakening of 2006-08.
Alienated by the Maliki government, many tribal fighters have made
common cause with Islamic State. The idea is to give Sunni forces
local control, but linked to a national guard that will also absorb
Shi’ite militias that police their own areas.
“What the national guard does is basically give a promise to the
people in these provinces that if you stand up as part of the
process of securing your own population, your own families, your own
communities, you will be taken care of in terms of salaries and
pensions and being able to have a sustainable life and future for
your families," said a U.S. official in Iraq.
In Syria, the task is more complicated because of Western opposition
to the Assad government. Fighting Islamic State would be easier if Assad were removed, paving
the way for coordination between a government under new leadership
and mainstream rebels, said an official from a NATO member of the
coalition against IS.
“Everybody, including the Americans, knows that to make headway
against Islamic State you need Assad to go, just as you needed
Maliki to go in Iraq," the official said.
This would require the removal of a “smallish clique” around the
president, and those responsible for the worst atrocities – leaving
in place institutions including the bulk of the army as foundations
for a future transition.
For a post-Assad transition to happen, moderate rebels must
recapture momentum on the ground. A U.S. State Department official
stressed the need to strengthen those rebels and said the U.S. was
not going after Assad for now "because the moderate opposition isn't
ready yet".
But above all detente between the two rival powers in the Middle
East - Saudi Arabia and Assad's backer Iran, and a bargain between
Tehran and Washington, would set the stage for a political deal.
"If I am Assad, I will be worried. There is a consensus of not
wanting to do business with Assad, that this is a losing battle," a
Western diplomat said.
(Additional reporting by Lesley Wroughton in Washington and Ned
Parker in Baghdad; Editing by Alex Dziadosz and Giles Elgood)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
