The press secretary of the White House released a statement Saturday, 5 December, in which he said US President Barack Obama would address the American people Sunday, 6 December, on steps the US administration is taking to keep Americans safe. Three days prior to this statement, two radicalised naturalised Americans shot dead 14 people at a social centre in San Bernardino, California, and injured 21 others. According to James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the investigation as of Friday, 4 December, “has developed indications of radicalisation by the killers and of a potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organisations”. As a matter of fact, the terrorist organisation known as Daesh (Islamic State) lauded on Saturday, 5 December, the two shooters, a man and his wife by the name of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, of Pakistani origin, as “supporters” of this organisation. The statement of the White House press secretary pointed out that the US president would discuss the broader threat of terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how the United States “will defeat it”. And added that, Mr Obama would reiterate his “firm conviction that ISIS (Daesh) will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values... to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology”. The San Bernardino tragedy last Wednesday happened less than three weeks after a similar attack in Paris the month before. The world has woken up to a widening terrorist threat that targets not only the Syrians, the Iraqis or the Egyptians, but also humanity at large. The question, accordingly, is no longer the future of Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad, but the absolute priority to bring down all terrorist groups including, of course, Daesh. In other words, the war of terror must be reconsidered. And this precisely what Mr John Kerry, the US secretary of state, talked about in his remarks at the ministerial meeting of the Organisation of European Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Belgrade on Thursday, 3 December. In a wide ranging address that dealt with several topics, including the Paris summit on climate change and the problem of refugees, Kerry dealt with the situation in Syria and the fight against Daesh. He linked the hoped-for political solution in Syria with military efforts by the US-led international coalition to degrade and defeat Daesh. From September 2014, when this coalition was set up, until the end of November 2015 the military strategy of the coalition was mainly dependent on airstrikes against Daesh targets in both Syria and Iraq without seriously considering the important question of having “boots on the ground”. This has been left either to the Iraqi army in operations against Daesh in Iraqi territories, or to local militias, Kurds and Arabs, within Syria. Meanwhile, foreign-backed terrorist groups were battling the Arab Syrian Army and the Syrian state a recipe for defeat and disaster in the military offensive against Daesh if we can seriously describe it as such, something I have doubted all along ever since the global coalition came into being in September 2014. Secretary Kerry in his remarks in Belgrade paved the way for a radical change of strategy by the US administration. And the following is what he had to say about the new policy of Washington in its fight against Daesh: “But let me just say to everybody that I think we know that without the ability to find some ground forces that are prepared to take on Daesh, this fight will not be won completely by air, and we know that part of the political strategy that we are trying to effect in the Vienna process is geared towards getting the political transition in place. We empower every nation and every entity to come together, the Syrian army together with the opposition, together with all the surrounding countries, together with Russia, the United States and others, to go and fight Daesh. Just imagine how quickly this scourge could be eliminated in a matter of literally months if we were able to secure that kind of political resolution.” Needless to say, what the US secretary of state said was opening a Pandora's box in the Middle East, and particularly in Syria, as to who would fight against whom taking into consideration the complexities on the situation on the ground. For instance, who would command such an international coalition? Will the United States and its allies and partners in Syria be able to redirect the efforts of affiliated groups against Daesh in close coordination with the Syrian government and the Syrian army? Will this coalition fight Daesh in Syria only, or also in Iraq? How could we bring together the Turks and the Iranians and the Arabs fighting for the same military objectives? Is it conceivable that all the components of the Syrian opposition would be willing to forget their political rivalry and their jockeying for power and influence at the expense of the territorial integrity of their homeland and agree on a common politico-military platform? These are the kinds of questions that should be discussed before a commitment is made on deploying troops on the ground. As far as the Arabs are concerned, at the present moment, there are no indications that there are takers for the American proposal. At least for now. On the other hand, the American position itself must be defined clearly. President Obama spoke to the British prime minister on Wednesday, 4 December, to welcome the yes vote of the British parliament to authorise air strikes by the Royal Air Force against Daesh in Syria. However, the US-UK position over a possible broader coalition against Daesh needs to be reconciled with what Kerry said in Belgrade the day after. According to the White House, the two leaders discussed further steps that can be taken to degrade and destroy Daesh, and reiterated that “all countries are welcome to join the existing coalition, if their political and military objectives in Syria are consistent with those of the coalition.” It is difficult, at least from my standpoint, to reconcile this position with the ideas advanced by Secretary Kerry. In the next few days, matters could become clearer after the address to the nation by President Obama on Sunday, and after the conference hosted by the Saudis in Riyadh from 8-9 December for the Syrian opposition in a bid, in the context of the Vienna process, to form an opposition delegation to negotiate with the Syrian government on the details of a political transition in Syria according to the timetable agreed upon in Vienna 2 in November. Elections would take place in Syria, under that timetable, within one year and a half after 1 January 2016. Let us hope every power that has groups fighting the Syrian government could hold off for the next 18 months. Who would like to bet? In the meantime, Egypt should seriously consider restoring diplomatic relations with Syria. The writer is a former assistant to the foreign minister.
