The Attack on ISIS Expands to Syria

New York Times

By the time President Obama announced the authorization of airstrikes in Syria Wednesday night, he clearly felt that he had little choice militarily or politically. For three years he resisted American military involvement in Syria, where the Assad government and rebel forces are engaged in a bloody civil war.

But with the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — the vicious Sunni extremist group also known as ISIS and ISIL, which has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and beheaded two Americans — Mr. Obama explained that he had to expand the fight into a perilous new horizon. “ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East — including American citizens, personnel and facilities,” he said. “If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.”

In broadening the operation beyond airstrikes in Iraq, Mr. Obama says the aim now is to retake ISIS-controlled territory in Iraq and to degrade and ultimately destroy it wherever it operates, including in its strongholds in Syria. But even if discrete military goals are achieved in the short term, the expansion of the American role in that regional conflict carries substantial and unpredictable risks that Americans may not be willing to bear.

That’s why this open-ended operation, which Mr. Obama says will take time, demands congressional approval, despite his claim of authority to expand the campaign in Iraq and take the fight to Syria under the Iraq war resolution and the War Powers Resolution.

Right now, opinion polls favor action, but that could evaporate if there are casualties. Many members of Congress would just as soon avoid taking a vote, but Mr. Obama should insist that Congress share responsibility in authorizing the mission. There will be no turning back once airstrikes enter Syrian territory, unleashing events that simply cannot be foreseen. Surely that’s a lesson America has learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama says that military commanders are free to strike if they identify appropriate targets. The focus, he said, is ISIS, not forces and installations controlled by Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader that Mr. Obama has said must leave power. He has ruled out American ground troops although he said he would deploy another 475 military advisers to assist the Iraqi Army. And he has described his plans for organizing a broad coalition of partners under American leadership.

However strong the case for acting, the success of his plan depends on some pretty weak reeds. To be effective, American airstrikes need to be followed up by ground troops who can recapture and hold territory against ISIS. Administration officials have long argued against American military action in Syria in part because so-called moderate rebel groups were divided and ineffective. Now the White House is planning to train and support these groups, but it is by no means certain that this will work.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

The same goes for the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish pesh merga, both of which collapsed before the ISIS onslaught on Mosul in June. The Americans trained the Iraqi Army, and no one has explained how retraining could ensure a better outcome, although the approval of a new government in Baghdad this week could help if it addresses the political grievances of Sunnis and Kurds.
As President Obama moves the nation back onto a war footing, it is also vital to have a cleareyed debate about how expensive that course could be. The Pentagon had a blank check to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The price tag — now more than $1 trillion — has been a severe burden for the country.

The formation of an international coalition that includes Arab states, Western allies and the United States Congress is crucial to give the American-led operation legitimacy. Beyond that, the partners will need to shut down financing for ISIS, close the Turkish border to militant recruits and weapons and help arm the Iraqis. Sunni Arab states must persuade Sunnis attracted by ISIS that it represents a perversion of Islam that must be rejected.

The American military’s actions in the Middle East has often fueled Arab anger, even when the United States was spending billions of dollars on beneficial programs, including health and education. Mr. Obama expressed confidence that the plan against ISIS will work and, at the moment, seems aware of the risks he takes.

اقرأ أيضاً بقلم New York Times

9/11: Finding Answers in Ashes 16 Years Later

The Crimes of Palmyra

Democracy Wins in Turkey

Obama’s Slap in Britain’s Face

The Spreading Rage at ISIS

New Saudi King and U.S. Face Crucial Point in the Relationship

Keeping a Promise to Afghans

Mr. Obama’s Historic Move on Cuba

Cuba’s Economy at a Crossroads

7 Key Points From the C.I.A. Torture Report

Is Peaceful Korean Unification Possible?

Why Kobani Must Be Saved

The Democratic Panic

A Deadly Legacy in Iraq

Don’t Hide the Syrian Aid Vote

Hopes for Iraq’s New Government

Confronting the ISIS Threat

Afghanistan’s Moment of Reckoning

Preventing a Slaughter in Iraq