How time changes the White House
The beheading of two American journalists by the Islamic State caliphate in Iraq-Syria meant the US was bound to retaliate one way or the other. Their first sortie, which helped dislodge al Baghdadi’s forces from the Mosul dam, though significant in terms of returning to the Iraqi theatre, was never going to suffice. Now, the White House has decided to hunt down the militant group, though only aerially, wherever its terrorists might seek sanctuary. While few would disagree with the need to take the IS out, finally, Washington’s involvement, and that of key Arab states along with it, raise very important questions that must be addressed.
First, of course, is how the Americans position themselves from here on in the wider war against terrorism. The Obama administration will not go into details, of course, but going after the IS marks perhaps the most significant American U-turn in the new century; these are, after all, the same Saudi proxy the Americans were happy to support not long ago when Assad’s ouster seemed imminent. And it also means siding with Assad very directly, not to mention echoing his concerns, however indirectly, that Syria was under attack by Islamist terrorists. So the rhetoric of supporting “moderate rebels” to uproot the “illegitimate government” must cease. Then there is the GCC angle. The hunt for IS might bring Iran and the Sunni states together temporarily, but eventually they will split. The Saudis seem to have turned around only because the proxy is straining too hard at the leash, and now threatens taking on the House of Saud itself. If Riyadh had a thing against militancy, it would not have bankrolled it for two decades.
There is also the question of bombing inside Syrian territory, or even violating its airspace. Damascus is still a very different ball game than Baghdad. And if an agreement between Syria and America (wisely) precedes the action, then another game changer would have been introduced to the situation. The Obama administration must have considered these questions before choosing their response, not just for the sake of world security, but also for the Democrats’ chances in the next election. They built their case for office against Bush’s senseless Iraq war and the overall tilt of the national security policy. Now they find themselves employing pretty similar tactics, however different the ground setting. There will definitely be civilian casualties, which will draw strong reaction. And if the action turns out half-hearted or it is seen that the Saudis are up to their old ways, and the Americans supporting them behind the scenes (as usual), then there will be much to pay, both at home and abroad.
