Syria: Obama Dismisses Imminent Attacks
The American president admitted on Thursday that the United States does not yet have a strategy for attacking the Islamic State in Syria.
“We don’t have a strategy yet”: Barack Obama directly admitted on Thursday that the United States was not in a position to attack the Islamic State in Syria, invalidating speculation concerning imminent airstrikes. After three weeks of bombings in neighboring Iraq against jihadi extremists, the American president has stressed that he is working on a project that is both military and diplomatic in order to defeat the Islamic State, reinforcing that this will be “neither quick nor easy.”
But he has, for the moment, prohibited any strikes to be carried out on Syrian territory after several days of intense speculations, fueled by statements from Pentagon officials warning against a group said to possess “a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess,” and who “are beyond” just a terrorist group. The American military has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in northern Iraq since Aug. 8. In particular, these strikes have allowed the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces to take back the Mosul Dam, which was formerly in the hands of the jihadi.
Building an International Coalition
But faced with a movement that declares itself eager to establish a “caliphate” between Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon is working on different options that will enable a response for jihadi on both sides of the border, who wish to erase this very thing. “We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans,” reinforced Obama during a press conference at the White House, before once again assembling the members of his National Security Council.
Stressing the importance of relying on “strong regional partners,” he announced that the secretary of state, John Kerry, would soon be traveling to the region in order to build an essential coalition that would be able to respond to this threat considered a “cancer.” Barack Obama has otherwise declared that the United States does not have to choose between Bashar al-Assad’s regime on the one hand and the extremist Islamic jihadi on the other.
No Collaboration with Assad
Obama’s administration, which now shares a common and clearly identifiable enemy with Damascus, finds itself in a difficult situation. The Syrian government confirms that it is ready to cooperate with Washington in order to fight against the jihadi, but says that all attacks in Syrian territory must be carried out in cooperation with Damascus for risk of this otherwise being considered an act of aggression. “We will continue to support a moderate opposition inside of Syria, in part because we have to give people inside of Syria a choice other than ISIL or Assad,” said Obama.
“I don't see any scenario in which Assad somehow is able to bring peace and stability to a region that is majority Sunni and has not so far, you know, shown any willingness to share power with them or in any kind of significant way deal with the longstanding grievances that they have there,” he added, judging that the Syrian leader has lost any sense of legitimacy on the international stage. The president’s words provoked strong reactions among the Republicans.
“I Don’t Want To Put the Cart before the Horse”
“It just confirmed what we’ve been talking about really for almost two years. There has been no real strategy,” reinforced Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “And everybody knows you cannot stop ISIS in Iraq without ... their logistic operation in what many believe is supposed to be their headquarters or their capital of their caliphate in eastern Syria.” Moreover, Barack Obama has shown willingness to closely involve Congress in a potential military action in Syria. “But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.”
A year ago, Aug. 31, 2013, the American president announced that the United States was ready to attack targets of the Syrian regime in order to dissuade Assad from once again resorting to his chemical arsenal, after an attack near Damascus that left more than 1,400 dead, according to American intelligence. But, to the surprise of many, this was also part of his choice to subject the decision to vote in Congress, dismissing short-term military action. The vote, which was proving to be extremely difficult, did not end up taking place, as strikes were abandoned following a Russian proposition for the destruction of all chemical weapons in Syria.
“We don’t have a strategy yet”: Barack Obama directly admitted on Thursday that the United States was not in a position to attack the Islamic State in Syria, invalidating speculation concerning imminent airstrikes. After three weeks of bombings in neighboring Iraq against jihadi extremists, the American president has stressed that he is working on a project that is both military and diplomatic in order to defeat the Islamic State, reinforcing that this will be “neither quick nor easy.”
But he has, for the moment, prohibited any strikes to be carried out on Syrian territory after several days of intense speculations, fueled by statements from Pentagon officials warning against a group said to possess “a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess,” and who “are beyond” just a terrorist group. The American military has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in northern Iraq since Aug. 8. In particular, these strikes have allowed the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces to take back the Mosul Dam, which was formerly in the hands of the jihadi.
Building an International Coalition
But faced with a movement that declares itself eager to establish a “caliphate” between Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon is working on different options that will enable a response for jihadi on both sides of the border, who wish to erase this very thing. “We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans,” reinforced Obama during a press conference at the White House, before once again assembling the members of his National Security Council.
Stressing the importance of relying on “strong regional partners,” he announced that the secretary of state, John Kerry, would soon be traveling to the region in order to build an essential coalition that would be able to respond to this threat considered a “cancer.” Barack Obama has otherwise declared that the United States does not have to choose between Bashar al-Assad’s regime on the one hand and the extremist Islamic jihadi on the other.
No Collaboration with Assad
Obama’s administration, which now shares a common and clearly identifiable enemy with Damascus, finds itself in a difficult situation. The Syrian government confirms that it is ready to cooperate with Washington in order to fight against the jihadi, but says that all attacks in Syrian territory must be carried out in cooperation with Damascus for risk of this otherwise being considered an act of aggression. “We will continue to support a moderate opposition inside of Syria, in part because we have to give people inside of Syria a choice other than ISIL or Assad,” said Obama.
“I don't see any scenario in which Assad somehow is able to bring peace and stability to a region that is majority Sunni and has not so far, you know, shown any willingness to share power with them or in any kind of significant way deal with the longstanding grievances that they have there,” he added, judging that the Syrian leader has lost any sense of legitimacy on the international stage. The president’s words provoked strong reactions among the Republicans.
“I Don’t Want To Put the Cart before the Horse”
“It just confirmed what we’ve been talking about really for almost two years. There has been no real strategy,” reinforced Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “And everybody knows you cannot stop ISIS in Iraq without ... their logistic operation in what many believe is supposed to be their headquarters or their capital of their caliphate in eastern Syria.” Moreover, Barack Obama has shown willingness to closely involve Congress in a potential military action in Syria. “But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.”
A year ago, Aug. 31, 2013, the American president announced that the United States was ready to attack targets of the Syrian regime in order to dissuade Assad from once again resorting to his chemical arsenal, after an attack near Damascus that left more than 1,400 dead, according to American intelligence. But, to the surprise of many, this was also part of his choice to subject the decision to vote in Congress, dismissing short-term military action. The vote, which was proving to be extremely difficult, did not end up taking place, as strikes were abandoned following a Russian proposition for the destruction of all chemical weapons in Syria.
Next article![]( "September 11: Again and Forever")
