The Syrian Air Assault

By+Bai+Shi

Nearly two weeks after U.S. President Barack Obama declared his latest strategy for tackling Islamic State （IS） militants in Iraq and Syria， the first round of airstrikes on targets in Syria finally came on September 23.

U.S. military forces and partner nations undertook military actions against IS forces in Syria overnight， according to a statement released by the U.S. Central Command. It said that the targets included IS fighters， training compounds， headquarters， command and control facilities， storage facilities， a finance center， supply trucks and armed vehicles. At present， about two thirds of the estimated 30，000 IS fighters are based in Syria.

In his statement on September 10， Obama said that he had authorized military actions in large areas occupied by IS militants in Iraq and Syria， in addition to offering aid to moderate Syrian rebels. The statement revealed that U.S. jet fighters will carry out actions against IS in the territorial airspace of Syria， a country that the United States had long threatened intervention in over its civil war between Bashar al-Assads regime and rebels since 2011. However， Obama ruled out the possibility of a U.S. ground operation against IS.

A week later， the U.S. Congress approved Obamas $500-million plan to train and arm the moderate Syrian opposition taking on IS. The training program will be implemented outside Syria.

Obamas new strategy also includes calling on an international coalition of 40 countries to confront the Islamic extremist militant group and make more counter-terror efforts to cut off the groups funding and help stem the flow of fighters into the Middle East.

Not a cure-all

Obamas anti-IS strategy has acquired the necessary support from the U.S. Congress despite typical opposition to Obamas plans by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

The United States takes IS as a serious global threat， even though Obama has been entangled by partisan arguments as the mid-term election of the House of Representatives approaches， said Li Wei， a research fellow of counter-terror studies at the Beijing-based China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations （CICIR）， in an interview with Beijing Review.

The Obama administration did not make an immediate response when IS first swept many cities and towns in Syria and Iraq and committed war crimes against captives and civilians. The United States has been implementing a retrenched global strategy on counter-terrorism since Osama bin Laden was shot dead by U.S. task forces in Pakistan 2011.

But Obama soon realized that IS represents a clear threat to U.S. interests in Iraq as its militants smashed the army of Baghdad. In the past month， IS militants have beheaded three hostages—two American and one British—in protest against U.S. airstrikes on its forces in Iraq. If IS were to occupy the entire country， the United States would lose an important position in the Middle East. That is apparently unacceptable to the Obama administration.

“The soaring pressures of domestic public opinion forces Obama to take tough measures to tackle IS，” Li said. “However， the new plan shows that there is no big change for Obamas counter-terror policy.”

Obama said in his speech that U.S. combat troops will not take part in ground operations in Iraq and Syria. U.S. combat forces have withdrawn from Iraq. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force is due to finish withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. At present， U.S. counter-terror actions in many countries are carried out in the form of air strikes by drones and jet fighters. Anti-terror ground operations mainly rest on local pro-U.S. forces in these countries， such as Afghanistan and Yemen.

“There will be a problem with Obamas new strategy if U.S. military forces only carry out air strikes against IS militants. Air strikes cannot eliminate the militants. The jihad group has strong combat capability and is good at avoiding air strikes，” Li said.

He also warned that air strikes would probably lead to bombing innocent civilians， creating more humanitarian disasters.

Even so， it is certain that Obama will not send U.S. combat troops for ground operations against IS， Tian Wenlin， a researcher of Middle East studies with the CICIR， said to The Beijing News， a Beijingpublished news daily.

According to Tian， the United States has not recovered from the pain of the Iraq war. Meanwhile， the Obama administration has been pivoting U.S. strength to the AsiaPacific region in recent years， so it would not like to devote many troops to the Middle East， Tian added.

The U.S. Governments Middle East policy is often self-contradictory and full of muddled thinking， Wang Jinglie， a researcher with the Institute of West Asian and African Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences （CASS）， told Beijing Review.

The U.S. Government judges terrorists largely by political factors， Wang said. “If a militant group can represent U.S. interests， it will be regarded as righteous opposition by the U.S. Government. And if it threatens U.S. targets， it will be labeled as a terrorist group，” he noted.

In the past， for instance， the U.S. Government took a tolerant attitude toward IS when the Islamic extremism group rose in Syria as a rebel force. But now IS has spun out of U.S. control and begun to threaten U.S. targets， thus becoming a target of attacks by the military superpower.

In addition， Chinese observers have expressed confusion over the definition of“moderate” Syrian rebels， which Obama said the U.S. Government will support.

Over the past three years， Western governments have failed to create a moderate Syrian opposition that they can fully trust， Li said.

Li pointed out that the supposed moderate opposition group known as the Free Syria Army is mixed with terrorists， such as al-Nusra， Syrias al-Qaeda affiliate， and the Islamic Front. The training and arms from Western governments could possibly be handed over to another group of terrorists， resulting in a more complicated situation in the Middle East—much like what they did for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda group in Afghanistan， he warned.

The U.S. Government wants to topple Assads rule in Syria. However， the failure of democracy in Iraq offers a breeding ground for terrorism. Syria will become another Iraq if the U.S. Government repeats the same mistakes， Wang said.

Military operations can eliminate the twigs and leaves of terrorism， Wang noted， but only economic development and improving peoples livelihoods will root out the soil from which terrorists grow.

Anti-terror coalition

In the wake of Obamas call for the formation of an international coalition to defeat IS， U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been drumming up support for the plan as he met with Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and then attended an international conference in Paris on September 16. Representatives from 30 countries and international organizations， including five permanent members of the UN Security Council， along with the EU， Gulf countries and other concerned parties， attended the Paris conference hosted by French President Fran？ois Hollande. In a joint statement， the participants pledged to help Iraq fight IS militants by all means necessary.

“The U.S. Government hopes other allied countries can shoulder some part of the large expenditures of counter-terror operations，” Li said. “A U.S.-led and UN-backed multinational anti-terror coalition is the optimal option for the Obama administration. The coalition can not only tackle IS， but also can cope with other issues related to extremism in the Middle East. That will become an important pillar of the Obama administrations anti-terror strategy in the long term.”

According to the statement from the U.S. Central Command， Bahrain， Jordan， Saudi Arabia， Qatar and the United Arab Emirates also took part in or supported the September 23 airstrikes against IS targets.

But the legality of the U.S. bombing militant targets in Syria is still in question. Many Western states no longer recognize the Assad-led Syrian Government as a legitimate authority. In theory， any military action against IS targets in Syria should have been authorized， at minimum， by the UN Security Council.

Soon after Obamas initial announcement of expanding airstrikes in Syria， Damascus protested， saying that any U.S. military operations without its consent would be an act of aggression against Syrias territory and sovereignty.

Following the September 23 attacks， however， the Syrian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that it had been informed of the operations beforehand. But Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby told a briefing in Washington D.C. on the same day that the attacks were not carried out with the coordination and cooperation of the Syrian Government.

“Of course the Syrian administration tacitly approves the airstrikes， otherwise it would have publicly condemned the strikes and declared that such attack is a violation to its sovereignty，”Hamdi Abdullah， a political researcher， told Xinhua News Agency. Abdullah said that informing Damascus about the airstrike beforehand has allowed the Syrian Government to avoid confronting the issue of sovereignty violation.

Despite this， Russia insists that international anti-terror moves should be carried out within the framework of international law.

“[International law] requires not just a formal warning about the strikes but a clear consent of the Syrian Government or the UN Security Councils decision，” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in an online statement.

During his visit to Lebanon on September 18， Chinas Special Envoy to the Middle East Gong Xiaosheng also stressed that “any actions against terrorism must take into consideration the respect of the sovereignty and integrity of any state and we believe there should be no doubts about this issue.”