This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/us-strikes-isis-syria-new-battlefront

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
US-led strikes on Isis in Syria have opened a new Middle East battlefront US-led strikes on Isis in Syria have opened a new Middle East battlefront
(about 11 hours later)
By taking the fight to Islamic State (Isis) militants in Syria, Barack Obama has opened up a broad new Middle East battlefront – and started something that, by his own admission, he cannot finish. The US president warned this month that his vow to “degrade and destroy” Isis would take years to achieve. Obama’s successor in the White House is now likely to inherit, as did Obama in 2009, an ongoing, costly and intractable Middle East conflict.By taking the fight to Islamic State (Isis) militants in Syria, Barack Obama has opened up a broad new Middle East battlefront – and started something that, by his own admission, he cannot finish. The US president warned this month that his vow to “degrade and destroy” Isis would take years to achieve. Obama’s successor in the White House is now likely to inherit, as did Obama in 2009, an ongoing, costly and intractable Middle East conflict.
The intervention is highly significant in several other respects. Obama has stepped into the middle of Syria’s civil war after three years of resolutely striving to keep out. The possible consequences of this volte-face are unfathomable. The scale of Tuesday’s attack, involving fighter bombers, drones and sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, represented a major escalation compared with the more limited strikes on Isis in Iraq since August. Obama’s action was triggered by fears of an imminent massacre of Syrian Kurds, who fled in large numbers across the Turkish border last weekend in the face of Isis attacks. The intervention is significant in other respects. Obama has stepped into the middle of Syria’s civil war after three years of resolutely striving to keep out. The possible consequences of this volte-face are unfathomable. The scale of Tuesday’s attack, involving fighter bombers, drones and sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, was a big escalation compared with the more limited strikes on Isis in Iraq since August. Obama’s action was triggered by fears of an imminent massacre of Syrian Kurds, who fled in large numbers across the Turkish border last weekend in the face of Isis attacks.
But it is clear joint military planning with Arab allies has been under way for some time: John Kerry, secretary of state, visited the Gulf earlier this month to coordinate preparations. The direct involvement of Sunni Muslim-led Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, in defiance of Shia Muslim Iran and its Syrian ally, potentially expands the Syria-Iraq conflict into a region-wide struggle. It is clear that joint military planning with Arab allies has been under way for some time. John Kerry, the US secretary of state, visited the Gulf earlier this month to coordinate preparations. The direct involvement of Sunni Muslim-led Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, in defiance of Shia Muslim Iran and its Syrian ally, potentially expands the Syria-Iraq conflict into a region-wide struggle.
The US-led air strikes in Syria raise other key questions:The US-led air strikes in Syria raise other key questions:
LegalityLegality
The legality of any western or foreign military action in Syria, present and future, is of paramount importance, given the still controversial history of the 2003 Iraq intervention when the US and Britain acted without UN authorisation. The legality of any western or foreign military action in Syria, present and future, is of paramount importance given the history of the 2003 Iraq intervention when the US and Britain acted without UN authorisation.
Unlike the Iraqi government, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has not requested outside assistance in fighting Isis. American officials admit Assad’s permission was not sought, although the regime was informed of the air strikes in advance. The UN security council has not sanctioned military action, nor given Russia’s hostility is it likely to. On the other hand, under international law, UN members have a “responsibility to protect” groups of civilians, such as the Syrian Kurds, when their lives are imminently threatened. The US maintains Assad is no longer a legitimate leader following his alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians, a position echoed by Britain’s David Cameron. But this view is legally dubious. Unlike the Iraqi government, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, has not requested outside assistance in fighting Isis. American officials admit Assad’s permission was not sought, although the regime was informed of the air strikes in advance. The UN security council has not sanctioned military action, nor, given Russia’s hostility, is it likely to.
On the other hand, under international law, UN members have a responsibility to protect groups of civilians such as the Syrian Kurds when their lives are imminently threatened. The US maintains Assad is no longer a legitimate leader following his alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians, a position echoed by Britain’s David Cameron. But this view remains legally dubious.
EffectivenessEffectiveness
The Pentagon said it attacked 20 targets in northern and eastern Syria in Tuesday’s initial phase, principally command and control centres, weapons dumps, depots and barracks used by Isis and by an al-Qaida affiliate. A key target was the north-east Syrian town of Raqqa, which has become a safe haven for Isis cohorts fighting across the border in Iraq. More follow-up air strikes can be expected. One potential problem is unintended civilian casualties, which became a big issue during Nato campaigns in Afghanistan. The Pentagon said it had attacked 22 targets in northern and eastern Syria in Tuesday’s initial phase, principally command and control centres, weapons dumps, depots and barracks used by Isis and by an al-Qaida affiliate. A key target was the north-east Syrian town of Raqqa, which has become a safe haven for Isis cohorts fighting over the border in Iraq. Follow-up air strikes can be expected.
Another is whether air strikes have any lasting benefit. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, and other senior military figures in the US and Britain, have warned that air power alone cannot defeat Isis. Although the US has plans to train local ground forces, at present the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish peshmerga do not have the strength, resources or reach to occupy and hold territory freed of Isis control by air attacks. Thus any gains may be temporary. One potential problem is unintended civilian casualties, which became a big issue during Nato campaigns in Afghanistan. Another is whether air strikes have any lasting benefit. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, and other senior military figures in the US and Britain, have warned that air power alone cannot defeat Isis. Although the US has plans to train local ground forces, at present the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish peshmerga do not have the strength, resources or reach to occupy and hold territory freed of Isis control by air attacks. Thus any gains may prove to be temporary.
The Assad regimeThe Assad regime
Like Britain, the Obama administration has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Bashar al-Assad and free elections to create an inclusive, democratic government in Syria. But the dramatic rise of Isis with its extreme Islamist ideology and brutal methods has come to be seen as a bigger threat to western interests than is Assad. The Damascus regime, backed by its Russian ally, warned last month that unauthorised attacks on its sovereign territory would constitute aggression. But in truth Assad may quietly welcome Obama’s action, since it in effect shores up his position vis-a-vis a common enemy. The Isis threat is also having the effect of deflecting the hostility of neighbouring countries such as Turkey, which are now preoccupied with the security and refugee crisis along their shared border. Nevertheless, continued, sustained American and Arab bombing raids could bring the US and its allies into direct confrontation with Syrian government forces. Like Britain, the Obama administration has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Assad and free elections to create an inclusive, democratic government in Syria. But the dramatic rise of Isis, with its extreme Islamist ideology and brutal methods, has come to be seen as a bigger threat to western interests than Assad. The Damascus regime, backed by its Russian ally, warned last month that unauthorised attacks on its sovereign territory would constitute aggression. But in truth Assad may quietly welcome Obama’s action, since it in effect shores up his position with regard to a common enemy. The Isis threat is also having the effect of deflecting the hostility of neighbouring countries such as Turkey, which are now preoccupied with the security and refugee crisis along their shared border. Nevertheless, continued, sustained American and Arab bombing raids could bring the US and its allies into direct confrontation with Syrian government forces.
The Arab worldThe Arab world
The participation of Saudi Arabia and four other Arab countries in the military attacks is a major development in the post-2003 Iraq-Syria story. The subsequent threat by an Isis spokesman to take unspecified, violent reprisals against them underlined the extent to which the Syrian civil war may be fuelling a region-wide conflict. The involvement of these “moderate” Sunni Muslim regimes in attacking Sunni extremists also underscores the supposedly widening schism with the Shia Muslim world, as represented by Iran and its Alawite allies in Damascus. Tehran acquiesced in US attacks on Isis in Iraq, but is opposed to similar action inside Syria. What Iran does next may depend to some extent on the outcome of its long-running nuclear negotiations with the west. David Cameron, who will meet Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani in New York this week, has a rare chance to influence Iranian thinking. The participation of Saudi Arabia and four other Arab countries in the military attacks is a major development in the post-2003 Iraq-Syria story. The subsequent threat by an Isis spokesman to take unspecified, violent reprisals against them underlined the extent to which the Syrian civil war may be fuelling a region-wide conflict. The involvement of these “moderate” Sunni Muslim regimes in attacking Sunni extremists also underscores the supposedly widening schism with the Shia Muslim world, as represented by Iran and its Alawite allies in Damascus.
Tehran acquiesced in US attacks on Isis in Iraq, but is opposed to similar action inside Syria. What Iran does next may depend to some extent on the outcome of its long-running nuclear negotiations with the west. David Cameron, who will meet the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, in New York this week, has a rare chance to influence Iranian thinking.
Britain’s roleBritain’s role
Following his defeat in a House of Commons vote on Syria last year, Cameron has been ultra-cautious about offering direct British military support to the Americans in Iraq and Syria. France has been more engaged, launching air strikes against Isis in Iraq. But President François Hollande’s government says it will not get involved in Syria. Now that Obama has thrown the dice and joined the fray in Syria, Britain will feel increasing pressure to do more to help. Given that Cameron has personally vowed to destroy Isis and that public opinion has hardened following the beheadings of British and American hostages, it seems likely he will seek parliamentary backing for military action in Iraq – but not in Syria.Following his defeat in a House of Commons vote on Syria last year, Cameron has been ultra-cautious about offering direct British military support to the Americans in Iraq and Syria. France has been more engaged, launching air strikes against Isis in Iraq. But President François Hollande’s government says it will not get involved in Syria. Now that Obama has thrown the dice and joined the fray in Syria, Britain will feel increasing pressure to do more to help. Given that Cameron has personally vowed to destroy Isis and that public opinion has hardened following the beheadings of British and American hostages, it seems likely he will seek parliamentary backing for military action in Iraq – but not in Syria.