US offensive in Syria could mean another long war

This week US President Barack Obama announced that it was time for the US “to start going on some offence” against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

“Some offence” translates to a major escalation of American involvement in a conflict that many of its citizens want the US to quit. 

Obama has resisted calls to send US troops into war-torn Syria. Iraq was different because legal justification for intervention came from the Baghdad government’s request for American assistance. 

Many in the West remain keen to oust the government in Syria, but they are inhibited by the realisation that any successful bid to remove Bashar al-Assad would likely necessitate strengthening the hand of his enemies, ISIS. 

Much of the civilised world has agreed that ISIS has to be dealt with, but attacking the militant Islamist group in Iraq will not be enough. Its strongholds in Syria also need to be eradicated. It’s a tough call for anyone. 

Obama will have to explain how attacking ISIS in Syria could be done without benefiting Assad’s regime. And the American people are going to want to know how this can be done without getting the US military involved in another long war, especially one that involves ground troops.

But America knows it can’t act alone. Western partners have shown scant signs of commitment to a US-led military escalation, and Arab countries, while paying lip service to the idea of confronting ISIS, have steered clear of promises. 

And so Washington is left with its allies’ nodding heads, which it has conveniently translated as a green light to form a coalition of the half-willing. 

One of the things Washington seems to have overlooked is that many of its Arab allies, as well as Muslim-majority Turkey, fear being seen as American puppets in the eyes of their own people and are thus reluctant to join any US-led campaign. 

The US is also ignoring the fact that there is no unity among the Arab countries and that some of them are at each other’s throats. 

That the lives of dozens of Turkish diplomats kidnapped by ISIS fighters hang in the balance is another factor.   

There is also the long-term impact on civilians of US air strikes and other military action – a possible refugee crisis, radicalisation, reconstruction and so on. 

America has to keep in mind that this battle is somebody else’s civil war. Islamists like ISIS, and the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, are aiming to take over governments by any means. The Brotherhood succeeded in winning a general election in Egypt, but its inability to govern effectively brought a popular uprising that paved the way for a military coup and a bloody crackdown. 

Did any Arab governments cry foul over that violence? Of course not – because they, too, were afraid of losing power to the Islamists, especially those who enjoy substantial public support. That’s probably the reason why so few Arab nations spoke out against Israel’s ruthless strikes against Gaza in the recently ended war against Hamas.

There are other ways to counter ISIS, of course, and the US should not overlook them. These include closing Turkey’s border to prevent the flow of ISIS fighters and weapons into the contested areas, and cracking down on ISIS financing. The US could make deals with Sunni tribes to work with the Shi’ite-led government in Baghdad, and stay committed to the idea that Iraq’s coalition partners must reflect the ethnic makeup of the country for all to feel they have a stake in the nation’s future. 

The West could do more to arm the anti-Assad forces in Syria that are also battling ISIS fanatics. Taking sides and supporting the existing combatants is a measured response. Sending your troops into war is a decision that will have far-reaching consequences that cannot be foretold.