The United States Congress adopted an amendment last week granting US President Barack Obama authority to train and arm what it called “the moderate Syrian rebels.” The amendment was made to the Continuing Resolution (CR) that funds the US government till early 2015. The US House of Representatives passed the amendment 17 September, with the US Senate following suit the following day. The measure was introduced in the House by Representative Buck McKeon (R-California), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Rank and file members in both the Republican and Democratic parties had expressed concerns that the amendment would open the door to a broader military mission and raised questions about the strategy of sending arms and aid to rebel groups. According to the amendment, the US Secretary of Defence must notify lawmakers at least 15 days before commencing any training of Syrian rebels. He would have to ensure all fighters being trained receive background checks. The Pentagon must provide updates to Congress every 90 days.
“While we voted to approve the authority in large numbers, none of us believe that the programme alone can achieve the president's objective to ‘degrade and destroy' the Islamic State,” McKeon said after the vote in the House. He added that a more “robust strategy will be required from the president to do that.” He called for “boots on the ground.” White House Spokesman Josh Earnest said that the administration is “gratified by the bipartisan show of support for the president's strategy to make sure we are ramping up our support for Syrian opposition fighters, so we can make sure they are taking the fight to IS on the ground in their country.” Before adoption of the amendment, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing, on 16 September, where Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified on the administration's strategy to confront IS. General Dempsey said the US president had ordered him to come back on a “case-by-case basis” if the use of ground forces needed to be reconsidered.
Said Dempsey, “This coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true. But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I, of course, would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of US ground forces.” Such a case could be an attempt by the Iraqi government to take Mosul back from IS. Said General Dempsey, “It could very well be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising or accompanying for that mission.” Given the state of readiness of the Iraqi army and the Kurdish forces, it would be hard to imagine that they could carry out this difficult assault on Mosul on their own. As far as future military operations in Syria are concerned, General Dempsey said the US “will also pressure [IS] in Syria through a plan to train and equip vetted moderate Syrian rebels.” He went on to say, “We will work to ensure they have a Syrian chain of command and report to a moderate Syrian political authority. This force will work initially at the local and community level, and help pull together Syrians who have most felt the harsh hand [of IS].”
The US, according to General Dempsey, will be “prepared to strike targets in Syria that degrade [IS] capabilities.” The general assured the committee that “Within a coalition of capable, willing, regional and international partners, I believe we can destroy [IS] in Iraq, restore the Iraqi-Syrian border, and disrupt [IS] in Syria.” It is worth noting that General Dempsey warned last year, in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, that training and equipping the rebels included the risk of “extremists gaining access to additional capabilities, and insider attacks or inadvertent association with war crimes,” due to what he termed then “vetting difficulties.” Personally, I think the risk is still there. US Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 17 September and stressed that the two pillars of American strategy against IS include an inclusive Iraqi government and a broad international coalition so the United States is not alone. Kerry spoke about changing from a defensive strategy to an offensive one, a strategy that would, in his words, “[harness] the capabilities of the entire world to eliminate the [IS] threat once and for all.”
Kerry further added that the core of the strategy would be centred on a “global coalition that will collaborate closely across a number of specific areas, including direct and indirect military support. Military assistance can come in a range of forms, from training and equipping to logistics and airlift, and countries from inside and outside of the region are already right now providing that support in these venues.” Speaking about the Syrian opposition, Kerry said, “It is also critical that the opposition makes the most of the additional support, the kind of support that they have been requesting now for years. And they need to take this opportunity to prove to the world that they can become a viable alternative to the current regime. On the same day of this testimony, President Obama flew to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, where he assured the American public that he would “not commit to fighting another ground war in Iraq.” He said, also, that the American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission.
He added: “We cannot do for the Iraqis what they must do for themselves. After a decade of massive ground deployments it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of our partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries futures.” That is the “only solution that will succeed over the long term,” according to the US president. A top American general said that if the present US strategy fails “then it is time for Plan B.” He did not elaborate on what Plan B would look like. And here comes what is called “mission creep.” I do not rule out a repeat — albeit on much smaller scale — of the American experience in Vietnam. You start sending military advisers, and then small contingents, and as you fail to take on the enemy, whatever that enemy is, you get bogged down, till you have no other choice but to negotiate with the same men you set out to destroy in the first place.
But the difference between Vietnam of yesterday and the Middle East of today is that the United States will not be fighting an enemy alone, as in Vietnam, but with 40 nations from within and outside the region. In other words, the United States is no position today to cut and run. Let us hope that the strategy in place is the most appropriate one, not only to destroy IS, but also to combat international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
Doubts do exist, however, and that is why Arab members in the present coalition — including Egypt — should also have their own Plan Bs, just in case the United States, for one reason or another, decides to call it quits, whether during the two remaining years of the Obama administration, or into the next administration. The writer is former assistant to the foreign minister.
