Reluctant Leader, Reluctant Followers

I mean members of Obama's new coalition, supposedly not followers. But the US has to be the leader, Obama declares. Apparently, Obama's team, including Secretary Kerry, didn't get such firm commitments that regional nations could be called allies. Perhaps 'followers' is the more appropriate term: according to an NYT article (9/12), the only enthusiastic supporters of Obama's plan are the 'moderate' Syrian rebel groups, who hope to gain a windfall of arms. Even they complain, however, that it's too little and too late; IS buys their weapons and pays themselves handsome salaries, while the moderates nearly starve. IS extorts its new subjects, taxes them, loots the region and sells Iraqi oil on the black market: it has money.

The Syrian government would like to sign on against IS, and only asks that the US coordinate with it in its attacks in their country. Of course, the US avoids Assad like the plague: "he lost legitimacy a long time ago," Obama said.

But Egypt, Jordan and even Saudi Arabia appear to be only formally going along, without making any commitments. Iran, as the opponent of The Great Satan, is not invited, (it claims it was and turned the Great Satan down), but is fighting against IS, itself. Iraq's government is still not governing a critical part of the country and its population--the north, west and the Sunnis, respectively. Even if the new PM proves more ecumenical, able to unify the country, that could take years: the government the US put in place did a lot of damage to Iraq's nationhood.

Will Obama's campaign, allied with ghost coalition members, be like the wars in Somalia and Yemen, mentioned by Obama in passing? He didn't mention the Pakistan drone war, which, though larger, is still probably too small in scale to compare with what he's proposing: an assault on IS using our sophisticated air offense against the army of a movement, in both Iraq and Syria. However, many of his actual targets may turn out to be wedding parties or boys playing Cricket. What has been the result of our drone wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan? We've made enemies. We may have decapitated al Qaeda, yet it's still in operation. For every family of civilians, or children, mothers and fathers our drones summarily execute, we create recruits for even more violent and radical "Islamists."

I can guarantee that the IS is not so stupid as to mass its troops and artillery in places the US could target without killing civilians. However, we already claim there are miniscule numbers of civilian deaths and injuries in Somalia and Yemen. That's because when the US attacks, mysteriously, all dead males between the ages of 15 and 50 become 'militants.' Women of fighting age may be counted, too. Wave the wand: civilian deaths gone, except for a niggling asterisk: those little bodies, or the gray haired ones.

Obama may have really done it this time: committed himself to a 'police action' that no one else is any more enthusiastically for than he is: the reluctant leading the reluctant and wary.

The problems with his proposal: it disregards the real facts on the ground. Our opponents in the Syrian civil war, Assad and Iran, are fighting IS; our natural allies, the moderate rebels, are dispirited and outgunned; Iraq is still a mess. Our other expected allies are more concerned with the Palestinian or other more local problems, or are divided, as are the Persian Gulf monarchies: Qatar, for example, has been funding IS; Saudi Arabia is wary of IS and the US. Worst of all, Turkey will not participate for two reasons: fear of Kurdish groups fighting Syria would strengthen the Kurdish rebellion against Turkey. They are also constrained by the 49 Turkish hostages held by IS.

After all the US's invasions, surges, bombing campaigns, drone wars and advisory missions in the region, there may be a growing sense among the supposed beneficiaries, that the US makes things worse, not better. Further, when America leads in the Mideast, that means that regional powers do not. Now, they are like the boy who doesn't want to go to wherever his parents want him to, and he has to be dragged along by his father.

The region's powers will have to solve this puzzle on their own. They may not, but face it: we can't solve it for them. Right now, Obama looks like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

Consequences for the Middle East of Obama's plan: there will be more inconclusive violence, more recruits for bitter-enders and more destabilization. Consequences for the United States: the President does and will look inconsistent and ineffective, and nothing will get done in the next two years, because Republicans will try to override or repeal Obama's programs, especially if they win a majority in the Senate as well as the House. That's more likely if this campaign is a disaster. Then, only Presidential vetoes will stand in their way.

The only action by the US that might contribute to stopping IS would be to negotiate a regional arms embargo, to dry up the flow of weapons, especially to IS. But who makes money on that?

There! The US Navy has its mission: enforce the embargo on the seas; so does the Air Force; that would at least be some business for our fearsome arms. Maybe the Air Force would even get another reason to bomb people: they're the scum who are smuggling in arms to kill more people.